• 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

NNAP Meeting - 11 February 2003

Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Level 60, Governor Phillip Tower
1 Farrer Place, Sydney

Present: Anthony Alder, Philip Argy, Bruce Arnold, Grant Bayley, Colin Chang, Michelle Eadie, Mark Hughes, Keith Inman, Jo Lim, Karl Schaffarczyk, Derek Whitehead

Teleconference: Marina Boyle, Shane O'Dea, Rob Sanders, Bruce Tonkin

Apologies: Martin Cooney, Tom Dale, Kevin Fleming, Sara Kerum, Geoff Morrison, Cath Parker, Scott Pettersson, David Thompson, Robert Wheeler

Actions:

1. DW and JL to finalise the Process for Future Consideration of New 2LDs paper, to be approved by the Panel before it is submitted to the auDA Board at the end of March.
2. DW and JL to re-draft the Proposed New 2LDs Options paper for public release.

Next meeting
Tuesday 18 March 2003, 2pm-5pm - if required, depending on outcomes of public consultation.

Discussion

Process for Future Consideration of New 2LDs - outcomes of public consultation
The Process for Future Consideration of New 2LDs paper was released for public consultation on 9 January 2003. Two submissions were received.

• Submission from Sam Bauers:
  (i) The Panel did not consider it necessary to build in an extra step in the process to consider whether a proposal is materially the same as a rejected proposal. auDA has the discretion to reject proposals for non-compliance; the same discretion can apply here.
  (ii) The Panel felt that natural attrition would result in membership changes, without the need for a rotation system. It was noted that the auDA Board has the discretion to replace/remove Panel members at any time, having regard to the representativeness of the Panel as a whole.
  (iii) It was noted that auDA's Advisory Panel Procedures would allow the Panel to consult with independent experts if the need arises.

   

• Submission from Evan Arthur:
  (i) The Panel agreed that it would be useful to include an indicative timeline for the new 2LD process, including evaluation and implementation phases.
  (ii) The Panel noted that "public interest" connotes a legal threshold test that might not be appropriate for new 2LD proposals. The wording will be redrafted to convey the notion that new 2LDs should be submitted in the broad public interest, and should not serve to benefit a narrow private interest.

New 2LDs proposals - draft recommendations
The Panel discussed the options paper, which will be redrafted for public release.

Panel members confirmed their unwillingness to support the creation of new closed 2LDs at this time, on the grounds that the policy objectives of auDA (open and transparent management, a competitive industry) are best achieved through open 2LDs. The Panel noted that the auDA Board has indicated a clear preference for open 2LDs.

In relation to the 4 short-listed proposals, the Panel agreed the following:

• catholic.au: The Panel was in unanimous agreement that the proposal should not be recommended, because it conflicts with the basic policy principle that a 2LD should not be created for a single organisation. As the proposal did not address an open 2LD, no determination was made in this regard, however the Panel notes that it is possible under the process for the proposal to be reframed as an open 2LD.

   

• uni.au: A majority of the Panel agreed that the proposal should not be recommended, largely because of concerns about setting objective eligibility criteria. Most Panel members thought that an open 2LD would provide a more transparent mechanism for ensuring access to all eligible users. Some Panel members thought it might be possible to accommodate open 2LD attributes within a closed 2LD. Several Panel members did not support the proposal as either a closed or open 2LD, because they felt that it had not been demonstrated that user needs were not already well served by edu.au. As the proposal did not address an open 2LD, no determination was made in this regard, however the Panel notes that it is possible under the process for the proposal to be reframed as an open 2LD.

   

• research.au: The Panel was in unanimous agreement that the proposal should not be recommended, for 2 main reasons: 1) the proposal itself is not sufficiently developed, and 2) there is no clear reason why research.au should be a closed 2LD. The Panel sees potential merit in a proposal developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders in the public and private research sector.

   

• conf.au: The Panel was in unanimous agreement that the proposal should be recommended and the 2LD be reactivated. The Panel noted that auDA would need to undertake further consultation to develop suitable eligibility and allocation criteria for the 2LD.

The Panel also considered info.au. No proposals were received for this 2LD, which is presently inactive. The Panel agreed that auDA should continue to suspend service in the domain until such time as a proposal is submitted/accepted.

Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:08