NNAP Meeting - 14 January 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:
- DW and JL to draft options paper for Panel in relation to short-listed 2LD proposals.
Next meeting
Tuesday 11 February 2003, 2pm-5pm, at Mallesons Stephen
Jaques in Sydney.
Discussion:
The Panel met with the proposers of short-listed 2LDs, to discuss some of the issues raised in each proposal. Proposers attended the meeting for approximately 30 minutes each. DW emailed some questions to each proposer before the meeting, as a starting point for discussion with the Panel.
Discussion of catholic.au - attended by Karen Rose, on behalf of
Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference (ACBC)
KR gave apologies
from Fr Michael Kelly.
KR addressed the following issues:
- "Single organisation" policy: KR advised that the Catholic Church in Australia is not a single organisation. Rather, it is a community made up of different sectors (eg. schools, welfare, religious orders) whose roles and responsibilities are defined in Canon law. There are different peak bodies for each community sector. The ACBC does not oversight all sectors of the community, but performs a coordinating role. The catholic.au proposal is for a community-based 2LD, not a single organisation.
- Open versus closed: KR advised that the ACBC intends to develop policy for catholic.au in accordance with accepted practices and procedures enshrined in Canon law. Opening up policy development to public input would therefore pose some problems. It would undermine the right of the Catholic community to define its own policy environment, and may adversely affect the buy-in required from Catholic users if the new 2LD is to be a success.
- Existing arrangements: KR advised that Australian Catholics want to be identified as both Australian and Catholic; this is not possible within the existing 2LDs (or gTLDs). The Catholic community incorporates different types of entities (eg. non-profits, corporates, education bodies), making it difficult to accommodate them all within existing arrangements under catholic.org.au.
- Eligibility criteria: KR advised that, in general, the eligibility criteria for catholic.au would reflect Canon law. Organisations or individuals that are not recognised in Canon law would most likely not be eligible to licence a catholic.au domain name.
- Transition issues: KR advised that whilst the ACBC cannot force existing registrants to move to the new 2LD, there would be strong incentive for Australian Catholics to consolidate their domain names under the same identity. Consensus-based development of policy for catholic.au would assist buy-in from users.
In conclusion, KR told the Panel that catholic.au is not a religious 2LD or a single organisation 2LD, but a community-based 2LD. It is the ACBC's intention that catholic.au be an exemplar model for other community-based 2LDs, by incorporating the following features:
- defined community identity
- established community structures and processes
- management accountability and capability.
Discussion of uni.au and research .au - attended by John Mullarvey,
Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee (AVCC)
JM addressed the
following issues:
- Purpose of uni.au: JM advised that the Internet is a key promotional channel for Australian universities competing internationally for overseas students, enterprise and research. The sole purpose of uni.au is to enhance the online identity of Australian universities in the global marketplace. It would benefit the universities themselves, their staff and students.
- Existing arrangements: JM advised that universities are critical of the current state of edu.au; the lack of policy clarity has allowed "non-legitimate" educational institutions to register edu.au domain names.
- Open versus closed: JM advised that the AVCC's clear preference is for a closed 2LD, in order to ensure policy and quality control. However, the AVCC might support an open 2LD provided the eligibility criteria were strictly defined.
- Eligibility criteria: JM advised that eligibility would not be restricted to AVCC members, but would include all universities (as defined by legislation) and other Australian Qualifications Framework tertiary institutions, and possibly their related entities. Other relevant bodies (eg. the AVCC) would also be eligible. There would be no restriction on the number of domain names that could be licensed by an eligible registrant.
- Cost issues: JM advised that the AVCC will meet all costs (although it has not yet done a cost analysis). The 2LD would be run on a not-for-profit basis.
- Transition issues: JM advised that universities would most likely maintain their edu.au registrations, although some may wish to discontinue use. It would be a user decision. The AVCC would not support a "forced" migration from edu.au to uni.au.
- Comments on research.au: JM advised that the AVCC had not consulted widely on the proposal. The AVCC would not object if research.au was an open 2LD, and also included privately funded research bodies and projects.
Discussion of conf.au - attended by Mark Tearle (by teleconference)
MT addressed the following issues:'
- User demand: MT suggested that a starting point for gauging user demand might be for auDA to contact the convention/conference bureaus in each State and Territory.
- Open versus closed: MT suggested that conf.au would be run as an open 2LD, in the same way as other existing open 2LDs. This would address past problems in relation to lack of published policies and service levels for conf.au.
- Eligibility criteria: MT suggested that a short-term licence period would produce the most benefit to the community, by ensuring that people don't "sit" on a domain name without actually holding a conference. MT told that Panel that he is not opposed to a 2 year licence period for conf.au, to make it consistent with other open 2LDs.
Panel discussion of proposals
- catholic.au: The Panel considered the argument that the proposal is not a single organisation 2LD but a community-based 2LD. The Panel considered statements made by KR and in the proposal itself about the involvement of the ACBC/Church Resources. It was agreed that the proposal is in effect made by the ACBC as a single organisation; therefore, it does not meet auDA policy. The Panel agreed unanimously that it would not recommend a closed 2LD for catholic.au. The Panel discussed whether it would be possible for catholic.au to be an open 2LD, but thought that there would be difficulties in determining objective eligibility criteria.
-
uni.au: A two-thirds majority of the Panel was in favour of uni.au as an
open 2LD with objective eligibility criteria. Other Panel members did not
support the proposal as either open or closed, on the basis that
universities are already accommodated within edu.au and the new 2LD would
not contribute to the enhanced visibility of Australian universities on
the Internet.
-
research.au: The Panel was in favour of research.au as an open 2LD with
objective eligibility criteria for public and privately funded research
bodies and projects. The Panel agreed that the proposal should be referred
back to the AVCC for further development and consultation with other
research stakeholders.
- conf.au: The Panel agreed to recommend that auDA reactivate conf.au, to be run as an open 2LD in the same way as other existing open 2LDs. The Panel thought that the standard 2 year licence period should apply.
