NRG Meeting - 6 April 2004
Teleconference
Present: Chris Disspain, Jo Lim, George Fong, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Natasha McGuire, Cheryl Hardy, Mark Jones, Ian Short, Kerry Webb, Allan Lebusque, Peter Shilling (TPP Internet - registrar)
Apologies: Paul Harcombe, Greg Windsor
Actions:
- JL to circulate draft minutes.
- auDA to set up public discussion list.
Discussion:
1. Registrar Options
auDA presented three options for provision of registrar services:
- Open to all auDA accredited registrars.
- auDA accredited registrar appointed through EOI process.
- Registrar "owned" by stakeholders.
PS advised that accredited registrars have a preference for options 1 or 2. Registrars cited the benefits of drawing on established companies with technical expertise and market experience.
The main concern expressed by registrars is that the policy rules for community geographic domain names seem to be much more complex and harder to apply than policy rules for other 2LDs. It was suggested that policy checks could be performed by an independent central body, with registrars performing technical functions only. The NRG noted that, whilst this approach may be desirable, it would appear that there is no suitable organisation willing to take on the role of policy authority.
It was agreed that registrars need to be able to operate within a well-defined policy framework, with clear guidelines for making decisions. The NRG noted that domain name application forms will be tested and refined during the OCOS pilot project, with the aim of making the application process as simple and straightforward as possible. It was suggested that during the first 3-6 months following public release, the NRG (or a sub-group of the NRG) could play an advisory role to help registrars with difficult applications.
The NRG favoured option 2 as the most workable and flexible approach. The main benefit of an EOI is that it provides certainty in relation to pricing. Rather than setting prices in a fluctuating competitive market, registrars will be able to charge a fixed price that is commensurate with the level of work involved. This will help to establish community geographic domain names as a "premium service" rather than a commodity item like other domains. It was agreed that more than one registrar may be appointed through the EOI process.
2. Dispute Resolution
NRG members discussed the types of disputes that are likely to occur in relation to community geographic domain names and possible mechanisms for handling them. Some key principles were agreed:
- arbitration is preferable to mediation because it produces a binding determination
- grounds for complaint/dispute need to be clearly defined
- the complainant should bear the onus of proof and the costs of lodging a complaint.
The NRG will continue to consider dispute resolution in upcoming meetings, taking into account relevant pilot project outcomes.
3. Pilot Project Update
NM advised that the Bathurst test case is progressing very well, with the first report due to be submitted next week. The online application process is on track to be completed in June. Due to NSW government budget cuts, the development of web templates is currently under review and may need to be scaled back.
GF advised that a public meeting was held in Ballarat on 5 April to invite people to join the test case. There is a long history of community web portals in the Ballarat region and reviewing past experiences will be part of the process.
4. Advisory Forum
The role of the Advisory Forum has been amended. A public discussion mail list will be set up for people who would like to receive regular updates and discuss policy issues in relation to community geographic domain names.
5. Community IT Conference
CLO tabled details of a community IT conference to be held in Adelaide on 3-4 May. Refer to the web site at http://www.communIT.info/conference.
6. Next Meeting
The next teleconference will be held on Tuesday 11 May, 2-4pm.
