CoP Meeting - 17 July 2003
Teleconference
10am - 11.15am
Present: Brett Fenton, Kirk Fletcher, Rod Keys, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jo Lim, Steve Raine, Stephen Ross, Ron Stark, Bruce Tonkin
Discussion:
Background
The Code was last reviewed by the Committee in February 2003 and Version 1.2003 was endorsed by the auDA Board in March 2003. Committee membership was confirmed for the current review.
ACCC submission
The ACCC submission included a summary of comments made in its February 2003 submission, which arrived too late to be taken into account for the last review.
The Committee discussed the ACCC's comments on the Code Version 1.2003:
- Clause 14.5 - the Committee did not consider it necessary to provide more details concerning the minimum requirements that a complaints-handling mechanism should include. The Code already sets out a number of minimum requirements.
- Clause 15.6 d) - it was agreed that consumers should be able to enquire on the progress of their complaint, within reasonable limits.
- Clause 10.2 - the Committee questioned why domain name suppliers should be obliged to pro-actively inform customers of material changes, as this obligation does not seem to exist in other industries. It was noted that material changes to a domain name licence would only be implemented by auDA, in which case auDA would be responsible for informing all registrants.
The Committee also considered the ACCC's comments from February 2003:
- In the absence of demand from industry or consumers, the Committee does not consider it necessary at this time to provide further specific guidelines regarding the operation and application of provisions in the Code.
- Registrars and their resellers are already required to comply with the Code of Practice under the Registrar Agreement with auDA, therefore the Committee believes that it would be somewhat redundant to place a positive obligation on them to confirm their Code compliance to auDA.
- Similarly, the Committee does not consider it necessary to require a declaration by registrars and their resellers of a minimum level of recognition and compliance with respect to the Code, because compliance is mandatory in any case.
- The Committee agrees that consumer awareness and understanding of the Code is limited, however it was noted that auDA has made efforts to inform all new registrants of the Code (by way of a "welcome" email to each new registrant).
- It was agreed that complainants should have the right to request a written response to their complaint (email is an accepted written format).
Solicitations for business - clause 5.5
The Committee discussed the recent Domain Names Australia mail out, offering registration of .com or net.au variations of the registrant's existing com.au domain name. The letter looks like an invoice, however because it is offering a new registration instead of a renewal, it does not breach the current wording of clause 5.5 h) of the Code.
The Committee agreed that solicitations for business must not be able to be construed as an invoice, whether for a new registration or a renewal.
The Committee also noted that it is possible to get around the restriction on mentioning a specific domain name licence in clause 5.5 b) by using a unique identifier that maps to a domain name. It was agreed that this loophole should be closed.
Action:
- SR to draft wording re complaints-handling issues.
- BT to draft wording re solicitations for business.
- KF to draft wording re unique identifiers.
- Next teleconference: Monday 4 August 2003, 10am.
