NNAP Meeting - 13 August 2002
Deacons
8th Floor, 1 Alfred Street
Circular Quay, Sydney
Present: Anthony Alder, Philip Argy, Bruce Arnold, Colin Chang, Patrick Dunne (for Keith Inman), Michelle Eadie, Mark Hughes, Sara Kerum, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Allan Lebusque, Jo Lim, Geoff Morrison, Scott Pettersson, Tanja Porter, Robert Wheeler, Derek Whitehead
Teleconference: Grant Bayley, Marina Boyle, Kevin Fleming, Shane O'Dea, Rob Sanders, David Thompson, Bruce Tonkin
Apologies: Martin Cooney, Cath Parker, Karl Schaffarczyk
Actions:
- DW and JL to redraft discussion papers and circulate to Panel list for comment.
- Discussion papers to be released in mid-August, for 4-5 week public consultation.
Next meeting
The next Panel meeting will be on Tuesday 1 October 2002,
2pm-5pm at either Minter Ellison or OITM.
Discussion:
New 2LDs discussion paper
The Panel considered the draft
discussion paper, that aimed to canvas in more detail some of the major
policy implications of creating new 2LDs, in particular new closed 2LDs.
It was suggested that it would be worth commenting on the new gTLDs, some of which are quite similar to some of the new 2LD proposals. The Panel noted that, as yet, there is no strong support from users for any of the new gTLDs. It takes a significant investment in promotion and marketing to achieve recognition and critical mass.
The Panel discussed the definition of "open 2LDs" and "closed 2LDs" and concluded that the main difference lies in who has control of policy, as opposed to who is eligible to register a domain name. auDA controls policy in the open 2LDs through open and consultative policy development processes. Other bodies control policy in closed 2LDs, and input to their processes may be limited. The Panel felt that this issue of policy control is critical to commercial advantage considerations. It was suggested that if policy control was to be removed from the proposing body, its enthusiasm for the proposal might wane.
The Panel discussed the purpose of the DNS. Domain names were originally meant to provide a mneumonic device for remembering an IP address. It was felt that the "guessability" and "memorability" of domain names is therefore critical to the usability or "navigability" of the DNS. The creation of many new 2LDs may lead to a complexity that undermines the current, simple taxonomy of the .au domain.
There was some debate as to whether the addition of new 2LDs will widen availability of domain names for new registrants, or whether it will cause existing registrants to register the same names in the new 2LDs. It was argued that fear of defensive registrations is not a sufficient reason for not creating new 2LDs; it would effectively give existing registrants "first mover" advantages that would be at odds with the non-proprietary nature of the DNS.
Geographic 2LDs discussion paper
The Panel expressed general, in
principle support for a geographic naming system such as that proposed by
OCOS and cBallarat.
However, the Panel believes that there are a number of issues arising from both proposals that require further examination before the proposals could be implemented by auDA. For example, it is not clear how far policy control extends beyond the 3LD. The Panel acknowledged that the proposed nsw.au pilot may help to resolve some of these issues. The Panel also noted that the pilot would not be able to commence until the registry/registrar operations for the new 2LDs had been determined, through a tender process to be run by auDA.
The Panel agreed that once the new geographic 2LDs for community use were established, it would be desirable for auDA to lift the ban on geographic domain names in com.au and net.au.
Other 2LD proposals
1. law.au
The Panel noted that the Law Council of Australia has
submitted a preliminary proposal that has not yet been fully discussed or
endorsed by the Council's membership. There is no evidence of clear support
for the 2LD – the submission itself suggests that there “may be many
lawyers” interested in a law.au domain name. The estimate of 36,000
practising lawyers is not an estimate of demand, but of notionally potential
demand. Provision of a funding model, together with evidence of widespread
support, would help to establish whether the proposed 2LD is likely to be
robust, sustainable and viable.
A benefit to the wider community of Internet users is claimed to be the certification role of the 2LD. It would presumably be inaccessible to legal firms and other entities involved in the legal sector, and the question arises as to whether there would be a demand for individual domain names for lawyers.
2. club.au
The stated purpose of the 2LD is to serve a group – clubs –
which at present is scattered throughout a wide range of 2LDs and gTLDs.
Creation of the 2LD would widen choice for organisations which see
themselves as being in the category “clubs”. However, it was suggested that
“club” is a construct of the proposal, and many clubs might prefer other
designations or categorisation – as sporting associations or community
organisations, for example. Is “clubness” a defining characteristic?
The Panel considered that the case for the club.au to be closed rather than open has not been established. The eligibility criteria, other than the requirement to be an Australian non-profit entity of some kind, are already established as eligibility criteria in other open 2LDs. The Panel noted that the organisation which it is proposed would manage the club.au 2LD has not yet been established, and no evidence was provided regarding its level of support, its financial backing or its long-term prospects.
3. med.au
The Panel noted that this 2LD would widen choice for the
health industry, depending on the eligibility critieria. The proposal is
focused on use of the 2LD for provision of a directory of all registered
entities in the medical sector. No clear support for the 2LD (or the
directory service) is demonstrated, and it is by no means clear that
eligible entities would prefer med.au to the alternatives. If they do not,
as a body, prefer this 2LD then the directory function would fail.
4. emb.au
There is no evidence of support for this proposal from the
proposed user group (foreign embassies), and no evidence that it would meet
a need not currently being met by the existing 2LDs.
5. aom.au
The proposal does not refer to the current Commonwealth
legislation and co-regulatory regime relating to online content, and in the
Panel's view this is a significant omission. Given that the proposal would
require legislative change, it is not possible for auDA to implement it, and
unlikely that the Commonwealth Government would support it given the current
co-regulatory regime.
6. conf.au
The Panel noted that past use of conf.au has been extremely
limited, and agreed that better promotion of the 2LD might improve its
popularity. There are no other 2LDs which cater for short-term events such
as conferences, although it could be argued that asn.au and org.au could
meet this purpose. It was pointed out that short-term registration is not
necessarily useful, since the ongoing "life" of a conference is often
unclear – eg. many conferences are annual events, and conference papers may
form a valuable online archive of proceedings.
There is clear evidence of support from the Linux community. However, the Panel questioned whether other entities that run conferences would find this 2LD more useful than other legitimate choices. As with the club.au proposal, is “conferenceness” a defining characteristic, or would most users intuitively search for the organisation running the conference, or the subject matter of the conference?
7. biz.au and info.au
In the absence of evidence of demand, the Panel
felt that it is not possible to tell how sustainable these 2LDs would be.
The main argument is that they would parallel the new gTLDs and provide more
space for Australian businesses. It was suggested that there is plenty of
space in existing commercial domains, and that another two would be
unnecessary and simply lead to defensive registrations.
8. David Patterson's proposal
David Patterson argues that there is a
need for more 2LDs, but does not weigh his proposals against the selection
criteria. The Panel’s discussion paper will address general issues raised in
this paper.
Other business:
DW advised that he has received an expression of interest from Brett Leavy,
on behalf of ICAAC (an ATSIC sub-committee) for a proposed ind.au for
indigenous people. The Panel agreed to invite Mr Leavy to submit a proposal
for consideration at the next meeting.
