NNAP Meeting - 12 November 2002
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Level 60, Governor Phillip Tower
1
Farrer Place, Sydney
Present: Philip Argy, Colin Chang, Tom Dale, Michelle Eadie, Mark Hughes, Keith Inman, Sara Kerum, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (observer), Jo Lim, Geoff Morrison, Cath Parker, Scott Pettersson, Tanja Porter, Karl Schaffarczyk, Robert Wheeler, Derek Whitehead
Teleconference: Marina Boyle, Shane O'Dea, David Thompson, Bruce Tonkin
Apologies: Anthony Alder, Bruce Arnold, Grant Bayley, Martin Cooney, Kevin Fleming, Rob Sanders
Actions:
- DW and JL to draft a scorecard/survey instrument for Panel members to evaluate each new 2LD proposal, to assist group discussion at the next Panel meeting.
- DW and JL to redraft the future new 2LD process paper.
Next meeting
Tuesday 10 December 2002, 2pm-5pm, at Mallesons Stephen
Jaques in Sydney.
Discussion:
The Panel congratulated CL-O on her election to auDA Board. In accordance with Board rules, CL-O resigned from the Panel and attended the meeting as an observer.
Restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au
The Panel
received 3 submissions in response to its proposed recommendations to the
auDA Board regarding new geographic 2LDs. All submissions were in favour of
the state/territory.au naming system.
In light of submissions received from the Committee for Geographical Names in Australasia and the ACT Government, the Panel held a vote on the mail list regarding its proposed recommendation: "A majority of the Panel believes that, once a system for community use of geographic domain names is implemented, there is no longer good reason to maintain the restriction on the use of geographic names in com.au and net.au."
As a result of the email vote, the Panel agreed to withdraw the recommendation and further discuss the issue at the meeting. The following comments were made at the meeting:
- Comparison with trademark registration. It is not possible to trademark a geographic name except in certain circumstances. It was suggested that a possible compromise option could be to create special eligibility criteria for use of geographic names in com.au and net.au, to parallel trademark registration rules. This would allow use of a geographic name for purposes other than association with the geographic area.
- User confusion. Concerns have been raised that the release of geographic names in com.au and net.au could lead to user confusion about the difference between commercial and community use of the names. It was pointed out that many Australian geographic names are already registered in gTLDs (and other ccTLDs) and experience suggests that people are not confused by different domain registrations; users are capable of identifying the "authoritative" web site for the geographic area.
- User choice. It has been argued that use of geographic names in com.au and net.au might undermine the new geographic 2LDs - ie. a commercial registrant might set up a portal web site in competition with the community web site. Some Panel members thought that "rival registrations" might be viewed as bad faith under the auDRP, while others favoured freedom of speech and pro-competition arguments. It was suggested that the community registrants in the new geographic 2LDs might also want to register the com.au or net.au equivalent as part of a broad marketing strategy.
Four options were considered:
- Recommend that the restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au be retained.
- Recommend that the allocation of geographic names in com.au and net.au be permitted under normal policy rules for open 2LDs.
- Recommend that the allocation of geographic names in com.au and net.au be permitted under special policy rules that parallel trademark registration rules.
- Do not provide a recommendation.
There was a clear preference among the Panel that any change to the current policy should not occur before implementation of the new geographic 2LDs.
The Panel held a vote on options 1 and 2 above. CL-O left the room for the vote. The Panel was unable to reach a consensus and therefore will not offer a recommendation to the auDA Board.
It was agreed that the issue would remain "on the table" until the next meeting and any Panel member who wishes to put forward an issues paper or draft proposal may do so.
Methodology for evaluation of new 2LD proposals
At its October
meeting, the auDA Board resolved that the Panel should proceed to evaluate
new 2LD proposals according to its understanding of the selection criteria
and process, as set out in the Panel's Interim Report.
The Panel discussed a methodology for evaluating the proposals.
The Panel had previously considered inviting some proposers to modify their proposals to better address the selection criteria. It was noted that some proposers provided additional information to the Panel as part of the earlier consultation process. It was agreed that in fairness to the proposers, who have already been waiting 6 months for an outcome, the Panel should follow a non-iterative, one-step process. Proposals which are not recommended in the current process are likely to be eligible for reconsideration as part of the new process to be proposed to the auDA Board.
The Panel agreed that each member will use a "scorecard" to give a numerical rating to each proposal against the selection criteria and other important factors. The purpose of the scorecards is to assist group discussion of the proposals at the next meeting.
The Panel noted that ICANN used a similar methodology to evaluate .org registry proposals; however, it was emphasised that ICANN was conducting a legal tender process, whereas the Panel is not.
It was agreed that evaluations should take into account both the merit of the basic concept for the 2LD, as well as the strength of the argument put forward by the proposer. The Panel wants to be able to indicate in principle support for the 2LD concept, but not necessarily the proposal itself. If an idea has merit, then it can be developed further and reconsidered in a future round.
The Panel's final report to auDA board will provide recommendations on each proposal, but not a detailed analysis of the proposals.
Process for future consideration of new 2LD proposals by auDA
The Panel discussed the draft paper circulated by the sub-group that met on
17 October. A number of editorial changes were made.
In summary, the suggested process is:
- proposals may be submitted at any time
- proposals must contain certain mandatory elements and must meet the stated selection criteria
- a standing Advisory Panel will consider proposals 3 times a year
- the normal Advisory Panel process will apply (ie. recommendations provided to auDA Board following public consultation)
- auDA Board makes decision to accept/reject Panel's recommendations.
The Panel agreed that the auDA Board should not be involved in evaluating future new 2LD proposals. The Panel noted the potential for proposers to attempt to "stack" the auDA Board in order to ensure favourable consideration of their proposal; using an independent advisory panel to evaluate proposals helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the process. This is also in keeping with the auDA Constitution, which states that an advisory panel should be used as the principle mechanism for developing policy.
It was suggested that the standing Advisory Panel should comprise around 10 members, to ensure a workable size. Participants could be drawn from a pool of nominees.
If a proposal raised new policy issues, the Panel would seek guidance from the auDA Board; the Board would decide whether to refer the issue to a new Panel or ask the existing Panel to consider as part of their evaluation of the proposal.
The Panel agreed that open 2LDs should be the "default" preference; proposals for closed 2LDs would need to be evaluated against a higher standard. It was also agreed that the eligibility criteria and allocation rules for the new 2LD is an important issue and should be clearly articulated by the proposer. In line with the preference for open 2LDs rather than closed, an inclusive approach to eligibility is preferred to exclusivity.
Whether there should be an application fee for proposals is a matter for auDA to determine. Some Panel members thought that a fee would help to deter frivolous proposals, however it was noted that the mandatory elements are quite onerous and non-compliant proposals would not be accepted by auDA.
It was suggested that auDA will need to seek legal advice about copyright
and intellectual property issues, eg. auDA's right to publish, use, alter a
proposal. It should be made clear that the context for submitting a proposal
is altruistic, in the public interest.
