CMAP Meeting - 28 March 2001
auDA
Level 7, 50 Queen St, Melbourne
Present: Philip Argy, Evan Arthur, Alan Chalmers, Matt Healy, Tony Hill, David Lieberman, Jo Lim, George Michaelson, Bruce Tonkin
Teleconference: Ian Johnston
Apologies: Sonja Bernhardt, Larry Bloch, Eugene Clark, Roberto Colanzi, Matthew Hall, Allan Horsley, Geoff Huston, Amanda James, John Lindsay, Peter McGrath, Bill O’Chee, Jonathon Potter, Andrew Robertson, Galen Townson, Pauline van Winsen, Karina Warnest, Tania Wickman
Actions:
- JL to draft minutes from meeting.
- JL and Co-Chairs to redraft Stage 3 report and circulate to the Panel via the closed list.
Decisions:
Redraft of Stage 3 report
1.The Chairs and secretariat will
redraft the Stage 3 report according todiscussion at the meeting, and
circulate it to the Panel via the closed list.
Next meeting
2.The next Panel meeting will be at Blake Dawson
Waldron in Sydney onWednesday 2 May 2001, 2pm-5pm.
Discussion:
1 Confirmation of 28 February minutes
Panel members confirmed
the minutes from the meeting on 28 February 2001, previously circulated via
the closed list.
2 Discussion of public consultation outcomes; and
3 Redraft of Stage
3 report
Panel members discussed how to revise the Stage 3 report
to take account of comments made in public submissions.
Section 4.2 – Policy Authority
Submissions indicated
strong support for the proposal that auDA be the policy authority for the
.au domain. However, views were divided as to the need for auDA to maintain
clear separation of policy and operations.
Most Panel members considered that auDA should not be a registry operator as that would compromise its ability to act as independent regulator, especially in a multiple registries model (ie. auDA as registry operator could have an unfair competitive advantage over other registry operators).
It was suggested that auDA could be held accountable in three ways:
- review by the courts;
- its own constitution, enforced by its members; and
- reserve powers in theTelecommunications Act.
It was agreed there needs to be an independent review mechanism built into the competition model, regardless of whether there is a single registry or multiple registries. This will be reflected in the revised report.
Section 4.3 – Registry
Several submissions addressed the
WHOIS function, especially with regard to privacy concerns about disclosure
of personal information.
WHOIS is a look-up service for information about domain names. It is mainly used for consumer protection,marketing and governmental/law enforcement purposes. It was noted that the requirement to provide look-up information in commercial domains is commensurate with disclosure requirements on businesses in the offline world. However, it was suggested that an opt-in/opt-out approach to the provision of WHOIS information may be appropriate in non-commercial domains, especially personal domains such as id.au.
To address privacy concerns, it was suggested that bulk access to WHOIS information should be restricted to a more limited set of data (eg. no personal contact details), and perhaps handled only by auDA (the registry operator(s) would be required to lodge all core data with auDA for this purpose).
The revised report will more clearly explain the purpose and use of WHOIS information, and address privacy concerns.
Submissions were mixed with regard to models 4.3 A (multiple registries) and model 4.3 B (single registry), reflecting the Panel’s own lack of consensus on this issue.
Panel members noted that both models are technically workable, the question is which one best meets both competition policy and public interest considerations. The multiple registries model is premised on the notion that there will be better incentive for innovation, while the single registry model asserts that efficiencies from a single operator is more important.
The following ‘hybrid’ option was suggested as a possible compromise:
1. Recommend a multiple registries model that addresses all technical and consumer issues.
2. Identify a subset of existing 2LDs (eg. all the so-called ‘generic’ 2LDs – com.au, net.au, org.au, id.au, asn.au, .info.au, and .conf.au) to be tendered to a single registry operator. (It would be expected that closed 2LDs would choose to opt-out of this process, however they would not be excluded).
3. Consider tendering any future new 2LDs to other registry operators.
Panel members considered that this option was attractive because it would:
- provide an acceptable balance between innovation and efficiency;
- test the registry market through the initial single tender, before going to multiple tenders;
- enable initial uniform SLAs to be imposed across all 2LDs via a single registry operator, that would serve as a benchmark for future multiple registry operators;
- allow time for the industry and consumers to adjust to a multiple registrar environment, before introducing multiple registry operators; and
- address public interest concerns regarding efficiency of resources and duplication of infrastructure.
It was suggested that auDA would run the top level .au registry and provide a central WHOIS service. Issues around the location and maintenance of the authoritative registry database need to be resolved. If a registry was to be operated by a foreign company, then it would be essential to require copies of all databases to be located and maintained in Australia.
The revised report will put forward the hybrid option outlined above.
Section 4.4 – Registrars
Some submissions queried the
appropriate level of regulation for registrars.
Panel members agreed there should be minimum SLAs imposed on registrars (eg. registrars must acknowledge receipt of a domain name licence application, and indicate turn-around times). SLAs would need to ensure a high quality of service for consumers, without excluding registrars who want to provide free service.
With regard to registrars accepting advance fees for long-term domain name registration services, it was suggested that the Panel could be guided by practice in other industry sectors (eg. insurance, travel).
It was agreed that a test-bed phase for new registrars would be sensible, as suggested in one submission.
Section 4.5 – Resellers
One submission commented that the
report does not adequately explain why resellers should be identified as a
separate layer of activity in the domain name services market, when it would
appear that they are merely agents of the registrar.
In the com.au market, most resellers bundle domain name registration with other value-add services, separately brand their domain name services, and set their own retail prices, so they are not merely agents of the registrar. In the.com domain name market, resellers often change their registrars whilst retaining their own branding of domain name services, or use different registrars for various parts of their business.
In a multiple registrars model, it would be expected that registrars would compete for reseller business, and resellers compete for the business of registrants. The presence of resellers in the market would have a direct impact on the retail price of domain names, as well as on consumer choice of service provider.
It was suggested that resellers should be required to disclose their relationship with the registrar, to the registrant, for consumer protection reasons.
The revised report will more clearly articulate the role of resellers in the domain name services market and discuss the costs and benefits of having resellers as a separate level of competition.
Section 4.6 – Registrant
Few submissions commented on this
section of the report in any detail.
The revised report will expand this section to include the issues raised in the discussion paper on consumer safeguards.
