CMAP Meeting - 29 November 2000
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Level 60, Governor Phillip Tower
1
Farrer Place, Sydney
Present: Philip Argy, Larry Bloch, Patrick Corliss, Matthew Hall, Tony Hill, David Lieberman, Jo Lim, George Michaelson, Bruce Tonkin, Andrew Robertson, Liz Williams, Frances Wood
Teleconference: Rob Anderson , Peter Gandolfo, Matthew Healy, Geoff Huston, Ian Johnston, Karina Warnest
Apologies: Evan Arthur, Sonja Bernhardt , Eugene Clark, Roberto Colanzi, Allan Horsley, David Howarth, Andrew Howell, Amanda James, John Lindsay , Peter McGrath, Bill O’Chee, Jonathon Potter, Andrew van der Stock, Pauline van Winsen, Tania Wickman
Actions:
- JL to draft minutes from meeting.
- GM to finalise Stage 1 report and distribute to auDA Board.
- LW to finalise Stage 2 report and distribute to auDA Board.
- JL and Co-Chairs to revise Stage 2a paper and circulate to list.
- JL and Co-Chairs to provide short response from Competition Panel to the Name Panel public consultation report.
- Co-Chairs, RA, MH, TH, DH and LW to draft Stage 3 report.
Decisions:
Stage 1 report (revised draft)
1.The Panel approved the Stage
1 report, subject to minor amendments. It will be presented to the auDA
Board on 6 December, and publicly released in the week beginning 11 December.
Stage 2 report (revised draft)
2.The Panel approved the Stage
2 report, subject to minor amendments. It will be presented to the auDA
Board on 6 December, and publicly released in the week beginning 11 December.
Stage 2a paper - discussion of issues
3.The Stage 2a paper
will be revised according to discussion at the meeting, and will be
circulated to the Panel for comment by 8 December.
4.The intention is to issue the Stage 2a paper for public comment, at the same time as the Stage 1 and 2 reports are released.
Stage 3 report - discussion of proposed competition models
5.Work on the Stage 3 report will be undertaken by the co-chairs and
secretariat during December/January. A number of Panel members volunteered
to assist.
Name Policy Advisory Panel public consultation report
6.The
Panel co-chairs will draft a short response to the Name Panel report, and
circulate to the Panel for comment by 8 December.
Next meeting
7.The next Panel meeting will be in Melbourne on
31 January 2001, 2pm-5pm (venue to be advised). A teleconference may be
scheduled for the second week of January 2001.
Discussion:
Newly appointed Panel co-chair David Lieberman was introduced. The Panel was advised that three members are standing for election to the auDA Board at the AGM on 5 December, and if successful they will have to resign their positions on the Panel.
1 Confirmation of 27 September minutes
Panel members confirmed
the minutes from the meeting on 25 October 2000, previously circulated via
the closed list.
2 Stage 1 report (revised draft)
Panel members suggested some
minor amendments and formatting changes to the Stage 1 report. George
Michaelson advised that the report will be circulated to all 2LD delegates
for their information andcomment.
Panel members discussed domain name 'ownership'. It was acknowledged that, although a domain name does not in fact confer any proprietary rights, common end-user expectation is that it does.
There was some discussion on the issue of substitutability. It was agreed that substitutability of 2LDs is a form of competition, but that substitutability of service provision is a more important consideration for the Panel.
Geoff Huston and Bruce Tonkin undertook to revise and re-format the diagrams. Ian Johnston, Frances Wood and Matt Healy undertook to provide some text on public interest considerations.
George Michaelson undertook to finalise the report and provide it to the secretariat by Friday 1 December, for distribution to the auDA Board.
3 Stage 2 report (draft)
The Panel thanked the working group for
its efforts in producing the Stage 2 report. A number of minor amendments
and formatting changes were suggested.
Panel members agreed that the report should include a reference end-user interests and stakeholder involvement as important factors to be considered when assessing the effectiveness of various ccTLD DNS models.
It was also agreed that the report should explicitly state the factual premise on which all ccTLDs have based their DNS models, ie the unique DNS root as described in RFC 2826.
Liz Williams undertook to finalise the report and provide it to the secretariat by Friday 1 December, for distribution to the auDA Board.
4 Stage 2a paper - discussion of issues and next steps
Panel
members discussed the Stage 2a paper. Section 3 of the paper (proposing to
follow the New Zealand strawman example and put forward a number of
competition models for public comment) was rejected.
Andrew Robertson tabled a checklist of what a typical end-user wants in relation to domain name services (eg. choice of supplier, assured quality of service, access to dispute resolution processes, etc.). It was suggested that the checklist would be a useful way of translating the principles in the Panel's Terms of Reference into plain English, and the secould be incorporated into the Stage 2a paper as a set of objectives.
It was the view of Panel members that the Stage 2a paper should not include references to any particular competition models, but should instead focus on objectives, criteria for ranking, and issues.
The Panel acknowledged that there is a need to start engaging with the public, especially after the release of the Name Panel report. Therefore, it was agreed that the Stage 2a paper should be issued for public comment, at the same time as the Stage 1 and 2 reports are released. The Stage 2a paper would not be a formal public consultation document, but would provide an opportunity for public review of the Panel's activities ahead of the Stage 3 report.
5 Stage 3 report - discussion of proposed competition models
The
Panel acknowledged the late circulation of a discussion paper on competition
models by Bruce Tonkin. He explained that the four models in the paper were
amalgams of models used in different ccTLDs.
Panel members discussed the issue of policy compliance checks within the system. It was suggested that naming policy should be automated as much as possible, and where not possible it should be implementedin a non-contestable manner (ie. by a single, independent body).
Accreditationof registrars was also raised, along with related issues such as registrar codes of conduct, service level agreements, and dispute resolution procedures.
Rob Anderson, Matthew Hall, Tony Hill (and subsequently, Matthew Healy, David Howarth and Liz Williams) volunteered to assist in drafting the Stage 3 report.
6 Name Policy Advisory Panel public consultation report
The
Panel co-chairs agreed to draft a short response to the Name Panel report,
briefly outlining some general observations regarding the impact of policy
changes on competition. The response will be circulated to the Panel for
comment/approval.
It was noted that individual Panel members may make a submission, but should not purport to speak on behalf of the entire Panel.
Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:02