• Home
• Domains
• Registrars
• auDA Policy
• auDA Foundation
• About auDA
• auDA News
• ANZIAs 2011
• auDA Blog
• YouTube Channel
• Help

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

auDA Policy

• Panels and Committees
  • 2012 Industry Advisory Panel
  • Secondary Market Working Group
  • 2010 Names Policy Panel
  • New 2LDs Advisory Panel
  • 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
• Policy Reviews
• auDRP

NNAP Meeting - 1 October 2002

Minter Ellison
Level 19, Aurora Place
88 Phillip Street, Sydney

Present: Anthony Alder, Bruce Arnold, Grant Bayley, Mark Hughes, Keith Inman, Sara Kerum, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Allan Lebusque, Jo Lim, Geoff Morrison, Cath Parker, Scott Pettersson, Tanja Porter, Karl Schaffarczyk, Robert Wheeler, Derek Whitehead

Teleconference: Marina Boyle, Kevin Fleming, Shane O'Dea, David Thompson, Bruce Tonkin

Apologies: Philip Argy, Colin Chang, Martin Cooney, Michelle Eadie, Rob Sanders

Actions:

1. DW and JL to draft interim report to auDA Board for 14 October Board meeting, to be finalised by 11 October at latest. The purpose of the report is to:
   1. seek the Board's endorsement of the Panel's understanding of the selection criteria and process to be used in evaluating proposals for new 2LDs; and
   2. provide recommendations in relation to the creation of a geographic system of 2LDs.
2. Panel drafting committee to meet on 17 October to discuss process for future consideration of new 2LDs (Grant Bayley to confirm venue)

Next meeting
Tuesday 12 November 2002, 2pm-5pm, in Sydney (venue tba).

Discussion:

Presentation by Brett Leavy, Indigneous Committee for Indigenous Communication Australia
Mr Leavy was invited to speak to the Panel about a proposed ind.au 2LD for indigenous purposes. A formal proposal was not submitted to the Panel, but Mr Leavy tabled a brief outline proposal at the meeting.

Mr Leavy explained that the main purposes of ind.au would be to:

• encourage Internet use by indigenous people; and
• validate or authenticate indigenous online content.

The Panel suggested that the proposal should be further developed, for consideration by auDA as part of a future new 2LDs process.

Geographic 2LDs discussion paper
The Panel acknowledged receipt of a submission from the OCOS working party addressing the issues raised in the discussion paper, as well as several other comments that were broadly supportive of the OCOS proposal.

The Panel noted that the OCOS working party has been developing the proposal for nearly two years, and during that time the proposal has been widely canvassed by both the working party and auDA's Name Policy Advisory Panel, as well as this Panel. The Panel noted that, as acknowledged by the OCOS working party, much of the operational detail of the proposal can only be resolved in practice and not much more can be gained by continuing to discuss or consult on the proposal "in abstract".

Therefore, noting the priority that auDA has placed on proposals for geographic 2LDs, the Panel agreed to recommend the OCOS proposal to the auDA Board.

The Panel noted the following points (raised in the discussion paper):

• National uniformity is very important, and this point is agreed by the OCOS working party.
• The operational processes need to be further developed in practice. The OCOS working party proposes a pilot in NSW, but the Panel notes that the technical infrastructure must be implemented for all 2LDs at the same time, not one by one. Therefore, it is more sensible to refer to a progressive implementation, rather than a pilot. The Panel suggested that other states should be permitted to participate at an early stage in the progressive implementation, if they are prepared to invest the similar resources and commitment as NSW.
• Community web sites are separate from domain name allocation, although there are natural synergies between the two in the OCOS schema.
• All domain names should have equal 3LD status. The OCOS working party suggests a way of handling duplicates, but the Panel does not consider it desirable to introduce a system of 4LDs just to deal with some exceptions.
• The registry will be selected by competitive tender, as agreed by the OCOS working party.
• Although geographic domain names are intended to be allocated for community-based, non-commercial use, the registrant does not necessarily have to be a non-profit community organisation. The registrant might be a company or individual acting on behalf of the community. The main consideration is whether there is a sufficient degree of community control over the registrant.
• The proposed indexing function at www.state.au needs to be explored further (eg. who would manage it?) and must be nationally uniform.
• The Panel noted that the Geographic Names Board does not support the use of geographic names in com.au and net.au, however a majority of the Panel (except SP and RW) was in favour of lifting the restriction. The Panel noted that it is difficult to maintain a complete and consistent restriction, due to names registered before the ban was introduced, and registered names that subsequently become geographic. The majority of Panel members rejected the notion that users would be confused about different commercial and community-use geographic domain names.

New 2LDs discussion paper
The Panel acknowledged receipt of a number of submissions that address the issues raised in the discussion paper, including from some of the proposers of new 2LDs.

In response to comments by some proposers that the discussion paper was beyond the scope of the Panel's terms of reference, the Panel noted that:

• it is not seeking to change the selection criteria, but to further explore or clarify them in line with the background material referred to in the Call for Proposals (two reports of the Name Policy Advisory Panel); and
• this is not a tender process, and proposers were advised in the Call for Proposals that the Panel reserved the right to recommend modified versions of proposals, and that proposers would be required to waive any proprietary rights in the proposal if accepted.

The Panel agreed that, at this stage of the process, it would be appropriate to provide an interim report to the auDA Board and to seek endorsement of the Panel's understanding of the selection criteria and evaluation process.

The Panel discussed the outcomes of the consultation process, and made the following comments:

• The introduction of new gTLDs was cited as an example of the global move towards market competition and increased choice for users. Does this mean that the creation of many new 2LDs in the .au domain is inevitable?
• There was a consensus view that the existing 2LD structure is not perfect and there is nothing wrong with increasing diversity in the .au domain. The Panel rejected the notion that domain names are a scarce resource. auDA has already lifted the old 'one domain name per entity' restriction, and there is nothing wrong with people having multiple registrations to reflect their different activities and interests. However, it was pointed out that diversity is more than just numerical. To what extent will people actually use the new 2LDs or just use them to resolve to existing 2LDs as a kind of "virtual tokenism"?
• If diversity is acceptable, then the important issue becomes the sustainability of the proposed new 2LD. Many of the proposers assert that simply creating the new 2LD will generate demand; this is not borne out by experience of the new TLDs created by ICANN. The Panel noted that, ultimately, the market will decide. There are three possible points of market failure: firstly, no registry operator will want to run the technical operations for the new 2LD; secondly, no registrar will want to sell the new domain names; thirdly, no registrant will want to buy the new domain names.
• The majority of Panel members were not comfortable with the closed nature of most of the proposed new 2LDs. It was noted that few proposers responded to the request in the Call for Proposals to explain why the 2LD should be closed rather than open. It was suggested that one course of action might be to ask proposers to argue their case for a closed 2LD, or perhaps change their proposal to an open 2LD, not closed.
• The Panel noted that auDA has already rejected the proposal to move to a "flat" naming structure, and has continued the policy of requiring single organisations to register 3LDs under an appopriate 2LD. The existing csiro.au is widely acknowledged as an historical anomaly. There was a strong view that if auDA was to allow a single organisation to register a 2LD, it would undermine the policy that 2LDs cannot be registered by a single individual or organisation.
• There was also a strong view that precedent-setting in relation to closed 2LDs is a key factor. It was acknowledged that 2LDs would only be created in response to a formal proposal, and the proposal must meet basic criteria. However, the fact that other proposals have not been submitted does not mean that a precedent has not been set.
• Some Panel members were not comfortable with the specificity of some proposed 2LD names. It was felt that it would be preferable to use generic names or abbreviations, like "com.au", "org.au", that follow the "high-level" naming pattern with which users are familiar. However, it was also noted that the existing 2LDs are not necessarily intuitive but have become well-known over time, and that users would learn to cope with diversity of 2LDs.
• Another issue raised by closed 2LD proposals is the need to take into account not only the sustainability of the 2LD, but of the organisation that proposes to manage the 2LD. If the closed 2LD manager ceases to exist or decides to withdraw from managing the 2LD, then auDA would become responsible and liable for the costs of running the 2LD. Would registrants in open 2LDs be required to subsidise registrants in closed 2LDs?
• There was some discussion of the problems in ensuring that a closed 2LD is being managed by the most appropriate body. It was suggested that the most appopriate manager of a closed 2LD could only be clearly identified where there is mandatory, national membership of a peak body.
• These and other conclusions of the Panel are reflected more fully in its Interim Report to the Board of auDA.

The Panel agreed that proposers of new 2LDs might be invited to submit futher material in support of their proposal, or make a presentation to the Panel if appropriate.

Process for future consideration of new 2LDs
Under the Terms of Reference, the Panel is required to recommend to the auDA Board "a process for future consideration of new 2LD proposals by auDA on an ongoing basis".

The Panel established a committee of DW, BA, GB, KI, SP, CL-O, MH, RW and KS to draft some proposals for the Panel to consider at its next meeting.

The committee will meet on Thursday 17 October, 2pm, in Sydney. GB offered to find a venue.

Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:11