NNAP Meeting - 9 July 2002
City Circle Room, Mercure Hotel
Railway Square, Sydney
Present: Philip Argy, Bruce Arnold, Grant Bayley, Colin Chang, Michelle Eadie, Kevin Fleming, Colin Griffith (for Robert Wheeler), Mark Hughes, Keith Inman, Olivia Kwok (for Anthony Alder), Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jo Lim, Cath Parker, Scott Pettersson, Tanja Porter, Karl Schaffarczyk, Bruce Tonkin, Derek Whitehead
Teleconference: Marina Boyle, Martin Cooney, Rob Sanders, David Thompson
Apologies: Sara Kerum, Geoff Morrison
Actions:
1. DW and JL to draft a discussion paper for the Panel addressing some additional criteria for new 2LDs (especially closed 2LDs).
2. DW and JL to facilitate mail list discussion of proposals not considered at the meeting.
3. DW and JL to identify issues for further consideration by the Panel in relation to the OCOS and c-Ballarat proposals.
Decisions:
Operating issues
1. Panel members may send a proxy to meetings,
but not on an ongoing basis. The auDA Board has approved the Panel
membership, therefore it would not be appropriate to allow permanent
substitution.
2. Panel discussions are confidential, however members are free to canvas issues with the groups that they represent. Only the Panel Chair is authorised to speak on behalf of the Panel.
3. Participation in meetings should be as equitable as possible, given that some members will only be able to attend by teleconference.
4. Panel meetings will be held in Sydney, which is where the majority of Panel members are located.
5. auDA's Advisory Panel Procedures defines "consensus" as a 2/3 majority. Members who hold a dissenting view should endeavour to raise it at the relevant time, rather than waiting until the end of the process. Minority views may be incorporated in the Panel's reports, but recommendations should be consensus-based.
6. As a general rule, all Panel documents will be published on the auDA web site.
Evaluation process
7. The Panel's evaluation process will take
into account:
- the criteria outlined in auDA's Call for Proposals document
- previous reports and consultations by the Name Policy Advisory Panel
- other guiding principles derived from relevant auDA documentation.
8. The Panel's final report to the auDA Board will contain recommendations about which new 2LDs should be created, but it will not include an implementation plan.
Next meeting
9. The next Panel meeting will be on Tuesday 13
August 2002, 2pm-5pm at Deacons (Circular Quay, Sydney).
Discussion:
Evaluation process
The Panel noted the four selection criteria
listed in auDA's Call for Proposals (summarised as follows):
- the 2LD must be robust, sustainable and viable
- it must serve the needs of users that are not well served at present
- there must be clear support among users
- it must widen choices for users.
The Panel must consider each proposal against the selection criteria, and must also assess how well each proposal addresses the other issues referred to in the Call for Proposals, such as the eligibility criteria and policy rules that would apply in the new 2LD.
The Panel will take into account general policy principles derived from previous reports and consultations by the Name Policy Advisory Panel. The Panel may also determine other guiding principles from relevant auDA documentation.
The Panel agreed that its final report to the auDA Board will contain recommendations about which 2LDs should be created, but it will not include an implementation plan. The Panel noted that the creation of a new 2LD is more than just a technical process, it is a major undertaking that requires detailed business planning. Experience with the new gTLDs (.biz, .info, .name) suggests that even after the implementation is completed, it takes a long time to build community awareness of the new domain space. If it was decided to create more than one new 2LD, auDA might consider a staggered release to minimise user confusion.
The Panel will treat all proposals equitably, bearing in mind that some proposing bodies are better resourced than others. Panel approval of a new 2LD proposal would be in principle only, and subject to further development by auDA. It was suggested that auDA should undertake a competitive tender process for new 2LDs, similar to the process currently being conducted by ICANN for management of the .org gTLD.
Proposing bodies do not have "rights of appeal" if their proposal is not recommended by the Panel. The best way to ensure that the Panel is able to make a fully informed decision about the proposal is for the proposing body (and its supporters) to participate in the Panel's public consultation processes.
New 2LD proposals
The Panel had a wide-ranging discussion about
general principles, including:
-
preservation of the overall integrity and usability of the entire .au
domain space:
- how many 2LDs can be created before the usability of the .au domain is undermined? what has been the experience in other ccTLDs that use a 2LD structure? -
DNS hierarchy issues:
- should 2LDs be mutually exclusive, or should registrants be able to choose between different 2LDs?
- are sub-sets of existing 2LDs a useful addition to the .au domain? -
purpose of the DNS:
- how is the DNS used for intuitive navigation or search purposes?
- should the DNS be used to enhance online identity and branding for a particular organisation or industry? or can those aims be achieved by other means, eg. a portal web site? -
precedent-setting:
- to what extent does creating a particular type of 2LD establish a precedent for similar 2LDs in future? to what extent would the auDA Board be bound to follow such a precedent? -
commercial advantage considerations:
- how does auDA identify the appropriate peak body to manage a closed 2LD? should auDA consider the potential for the peak body to exploit the 2LD in an anti-competitive manner? -
registrant/user demand:
- how can the Panel gauge the level of registrant/user demand for a new 2LD? - eg. commercial demand is very different from community demand.
- to that extent will registrants migrate to the new 2LD, or simply duplicate their existing domain names?
Geographic 2LDs
1. state/territory.au - Stephen Gethin
The Panel decided that the Gethin proposal did not meet the selection criteria for the following reasons:
- proprietary nature of proposal
- no evidence of support from relevant stakeholders
- auDA's Call for Proposals explicitly stated that priority would be given to proposals that focus on non-commercial, community use of domain names.
2. state/territory.au - c-Ballarat and City of Ballarat
3.
state/territory.au - One City One Site
Although there are other options available (eg. asn.au or org.au, possibly gov.au), it was suggested that there may be some benefit in providing a comprehensive, authoritative structure for community use of domain names.
The Panel noted the high level of support for the OCOS proposal, particularly from the government sector. Some concerns were expressed about the prominent role given to local government in the OCOS proposal. It was suggested that local government involvement may be a contentious issue in some geographic regions. The Panel agreed that the managing body must demonstrate a commitment to an open access regime, whereby a sufficiently representative community group would have the same access to the domain name as the local government authority.
Some concerns were expressed about navigation and management issues, in particular how to ensure a standard national approach by all states and territories. Usability could be undermined if states and territories were allowed to determine their own policy approach to the allocation of domain names in their jurisdiction. The Panel noted that the allocation of domain names is a separate issue to the management of portal web sites.
The Panel decided that, on initial review, both proposals appear to meet the selection criteria. The Panel noted that both proposals come from regional areas, and that regional use of geographic domain names is likely to be higher than urban use. There was in principle support for the state/territory.au structure, and the Panel will examine the proposals in more detail in further stages of the process.
Closed 2LDs
1. catholic.au - Australian Catholic Bishops Conference
The Panel noted that the proposal has clear support from the Catholic hierarchy and on that basis viability is most likely assured, but there is little evidence of actual user demand.
The proposal focuses on enhancing the online identity of Catholic organisations in Australia. The Panel suggested that there are other ways of achieving this aim. It was pointed out that there are hundreds of sub-domains under "catholic.org.au" which are already being used to give Catholic organisations an online presence. In addition, many Catholic schools have registered domain names in edu.au. There was some doubt as to whether the 2LD would have any benefit to the wider community of Internet users.
The Panel expressed strong concerns that the proposal, if accepted, would set a precedent for other religious groups to establish their own 2LD. The auDA Board may be placed in the difficult position of deciding whether or not a group qualifies as "religious", and furthermore, deciding which body is entitled to manage the 2LD on behalf of that religious group. The Panel felt that it is neither desirable nor appropriate for auDA to be involved in such a potentially contentious issue.
Similarly, the Panel was concerned that the proposal, if accepted, may also set a precedent for any other large organisation (not necessarily religious) to establish their own 2LD. The Panel noted that csiro.au (for the sole use of the CSIRO) is widely acknowledged to be an historical anomaly.
It was suggested that the proposal might be more acceptable if it used a more generic name that would accommodate more than one religious group - for example, "religion.au" - and was managed by a body that would be representative of all religious stakeholders.
2. uni(versity).au - Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
The Panel noted that the financial support of the universities would ensure the viability of the 2LD. The main purpose of the proposal is to differentiate universities (and related entities) from the rest of the education and training sector. The Panel discussed the history of edu.au and acknowledged that the lack of policy consistency over the years had perhaps undermined the original purpose of the 2LD. There was some concern that the creation of uni.au would further undermine edu.au, however the Panel was advised that AICTEC thinks it would have an inconsequential impact on the size or status of edu.au.
The proposal does not indicate whether universities intend to relinquish their existing edu.au names. If not, then the effect of the new 2LD might be to simply duplicate edu.au. It was suggested that auDA could require universities to migrate to the new 2LD within a short timeframe, in order to demonstrate their commitment to establishing uni.au as a genuine alternative to edu.au (instead of just using the uni.au domain name to resolve to the existing edu.au name).
The Panel noted that the proposal, if accepted, may set a precedent for other groups within the education and training sector to establish their own 2LD (eg. tafe.au, school.au, etc).
3. research.au - Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
The proposal narrowly defines the users of the 2LD as "publicly funded" research bodies. It was pointed out that universities themselves may not fall within the definition of a research body, because research is not their primary purpose.
The main purpose of the proposal appears to be the creation of an online portal for research activities. The Panel considered that this does not necessarily require the creation of a new 2LD, but could be achieved through use of a portal web site.
The Panel acknowledged that research bodies currently use a variety of 2LDs (eg. edu.au, com.au, gov.au), but it questioned whether this amounts to fragmentation, or simply registrant choice.
The Panel suggested that the proposal could be modified to make research.au an open 2LD which would include private research bodies as well as publicly funded ones.
4. pharmacy.au - Pharmacy Guild of Australia
CL-O declared an interest, not in respect to the proposal, but arising from her previous work with the pharmacy industry.
The Panel noted the public interest considerations in a new 2LD that provided some degree of quality assurance for pharmaceutical information, however it was suggested that it might be more appropriate to treat this as a sub-set of a more generic 2LD (eg. med.au or health.au).
The Panel noted that the proposal, if accepted, may set a precedent for other industry sectors to establish their own 2LD. The Panel expressed general reservations about the potential for the managing body of an industry-sector closed 2LD to use the 2LD as a way of raising its own profile within the industry.
It was suggested that the proposal could be modified to make pharmacy.au an open 2LD.
5. retail.au - Australian Retailers Association
The Panel thought that the proposal raised the same issues as pharmacy.au.
Last Updated: 07/03/2006 10:11
