• Home
• .au Domains
• auDA Foundation
• .au Registry
• .au Registrars
• .au Policy
• About auDA
• auDA News
• Help

• Contact Us
• Glossary
• Privacy Policy
• Sitemap
• WHOIS

.au Policy

• auDA Published Policies
• Policy Reviews
• Panels and Committees
  • Industry Competition Advisory Panel
  • 2007 Names Policy Panel
  • Name Policy Review Panel
  • Registry Competition Review Panel
  • National Reference Group
  • Code of Practice Committee
  • New Names Advisory Panel
  • Name Policy Advisory Panel
  • Competition Model Advisory Panel
  • Dispute Resolution Working Group
• auDRP

CoP Meeting - 13 February 2003

Teleconference
10am - 11.15am

Present: Brett Fenton, Kirk Fletcher, Rod Keys, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jo Lim, Jacqui Maiolo, Steve Raine, Elspeth Ross, Stephen Ross, Ken Saunders, Ron Stark, Bruce Tonkin

Discussion:

The Committee noted a late submission from the ACCC. It will be held over until the next review.

The Committee discussed the latest redraft of the Code. The following main points were noted:

• Definition of Customer has been revised to include registrants, the aim being to extend the protection of the Code to anyone who comes into contact with a domain name supplier, regardless of whether they are a registrant or not
• Clause 3 of the Code provides for use of a compliance mark, if/when auDA produces one. The Committee agreed that an official mark of some kind would be a useful way of raising awareness of the Code among the industry and consumers, although it was suggested that the compliance mark requirements (eg. registration with the ACCC, increased monitoring and audit obligations) might place strain on auDA's limited budget and resources.
• New clause 5.5 e) and example (4) were accepted (dealing with "forced transfers" issue).
• New clause 8.2 d) was rejected, the Committee preferred to revert to the original wording.
• New clause 11.2 gives registrars the option of pro-actively informing auDA if one of its resellers is not complying with the Code.
• It was agreed that the requirement for suppliers to inform their customers of material changes in policy should be changed to a requirement to publish information about material changes in policy (clause 10.2).
• It was agreed that, as a minimum requirement, suppliers must publish their complaints- handling process on their web site (clause 21.1). It was suggested that suppliers should be allowed to charge an administrative fee to complainants who request printed copies of information that is otherwise available online.

Action:

• SR and JL to finalise the Code redraft, Committee to sign-off by email
• CLO to draft cover letter and send Code to auDA Board for endorsement
• CLO to raise the issue of a complaince mark with the auDA Board.

Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:05