NRG Meeting - 9 October 2003
Teleconference
Present: Chris Disspain, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, George Fong, Natasha McGuire, Ian Short, Kerry Webb, Katie Ault, manda Diggles, Sue MacKensie-Smith, Rick Molony, Greg Windsor
Apologies: WA, NT, Paul Harcombe, Jo Lim, Cheryl Hardy
Actions:
- NM/auDA to circulate draft minutes and canvass proposed date/time for next NRG meeting.
- JL, NM and GW to liaise on final draft of items 1 & 2, draft policy rules. JL/NM to finialise and circulate amended draft policy rules paper for approval at next NRG meeting
- NM/auDA to draft current guidelines as an attachment to current policy items under discussion for circulation to NRG.
- NM to liaise with appropriate NRG members on web site/portal research available to them.
- NM to draft policy implementation models including options of local government and non-local government involvement in consultation with ALGA and auDA and in preparation for the Local Government Online Advisory Group’s meeting on the 22-23 October 2003.
- NM to circulate via email, material in relation to web site content, as received from SA.
- All NRG members to email issues and questions relating to the registrar and registry paper across the NRG mail list.
- auDA to draft policy agenda for consideration at next meeting.
Discussion:
1. Welcome
There were roundtable introductions.
2. Draft Policy Rules
Domain names available for registration - items 1 & 2
Items 1 & 2
were discussed. GW advised a number of amendments for paragraphs 1 & 2 to
ensure accuracy and AL suggested an amendment to include the Commonwealth in
paragraph 1. The NRG agreed that JL and GW would liaise on these changes and
advise the NRG at the next meeting.
The suggested amended paragraphs are as follows:
- Applicants may only license a domain name that is listed in the registry database. The registry database contains the names of all addressable localities (eg: suburbs, localities and towns) within the Commonwealth, each Australian state and territory, as defined by the Committee for Geographical names in Australasia (CGNA).
- Where a suburb has the same name as a town within a state or territory, the name of the suburb will be hyphenated to the name of the relevant place name. For example, richmond-sydney.nsw.au
There was discussion as to the content of the registry and it was noted that there were two databases in question. The first is the database to be provided by CGNA for the reserved listing of names for the .com.au and .net.au including all geographic names of cultural significance and address localities and/or their equivalent in each state and territory. The second is a database extracted from the first, including only address localities to be used for the purposes of the geographic 2LDs. The geographic 2LDs registry would start full with the second database of address localities only.
In context of item 2, there was discussion highlighting the need for the most appropriate geographic place name to be included in hyphenated names in cases of duplicate naming.
The NRG agreed that in any case of duplicate naming within each separate 2LD space, towns or cities would have the right to the name: town/city.state.au and the duplicate named suburb would be provided the hyphenated name: suburb-city.state.au. CGNA, as the national authority on geographic naming, will provide the database/s with suburbs hyphenated to the most appropriate town/city.
Eligibility Criteria – items 3a & 3b.
Agenda items 3a & 3b
were agreed to by the NRG subject to the development of specific guidelines
including the definitions of “representative” and “community” for the
purposes of the domain name license.
NM will liaise with JL & CD on these guidelines for discussion at the next NRG meeting.
- item 4
The NRG maintained agreement that no single private entity,
including local government, should be eligible to apply for a geographic
domain name. Only a not for profit entity (established or new) with
representation of a number of organisations/interest groups across the
community should be eligible.
Local government is clearly recognised as an important representative body of local communities, and as such would be an appropriate representative organisation to participate as a member of any not-for-profit entity applying for a domain name. Domain name licence conditions
- items 5,6 & 7
The NRG agreed to all items pending the development
of specific guidelines relating to these items. NM will liaise with JL & CD
on these guidelines for discussion at the next NRG meeting.
- item 8
The NRG highlighted that any entity registering a number of
geographic domain names must still remain eligible to do so. That is under
3b, the entity must be ‘representative’ of the local community. For example,
a not-for-profit entity that included representatives of a number of small
suburbs would be able to manage all the domains names in their area, thus
assisting the community with resourcing and cost savings.
The NRG agreed to item 8 and recognised the link to item 3b.
Issues for discussion
- Representative of the local community inc: local government endorsement.
The NRG agreed that policy guidelines (not policy rules) need to establish
what is meant by ‘representative’ of the community. The role of local
government was discussed, including the role of ‘council
approval/endorsement’ of the local applicant, as part of the application
process.
RM advised the support of the President/CEO of ALGA for the geographic 2LDs as developed thus far. ALGA sees that local government has a role but it needs to be clearly defined before further liaison with state level local government associations is possible.
NM will draft a number of alternative models for local government, in liaison with auDA and RM, for discussion at the next Local Government Online Advisory Group meeting on 22-23 October 2003.
The NRG noted that while ALGA may endorse a model, it only has the power to recommend, not prescribe what local government in each state and territory does. The important factors for local government will be the amount of time, resources and processes that they will be required to commit to the model.
It was also noted that the implementation of test cases, working with councils, was very important and that 4-6 tests cases would be desirable. NM advised that NSW funding restrictions allow for only one test case.
- Community web site
The NRG agreed that while the suggested parameters
were helpful, policy guidelines need to be developed in relation to this
area.
The NRG agreed that web site content rules would not be developed, however the best practice guidelines and models to be developed in association with the NSW test case would be important.
It was noted that research into current best practice community web sites and portals would assist with the development of the model throughout the test case. Some suggestions were put forward, including research being conducted by the ENCA at Monash University, SA web site development, and projects that councils have been participating in across the country, much of which is open source based.
3. Registry/Registrar Functions
CD provided a brief background on the registry system and the current status, including the renewal of the current tender in 2 years time.
There was a discussion of the costs of registry/registrar functions, as indicated in the paper provided. Costing models including auDA, registry and registrar costs need to be further developed.
It was suggested that multiple registrars (option 1) may not be the best solution as it is likely that specialist registrars will be required. While a single registrar (option 4) would limit industry competition, it may be justifiable given the nature of the geographic 2LDs and the limited number of names available for registration.
auDA advised that if the NRG agreed to have 8 separate registrars as shown in option 3, then if a state government wanted to be a registrar it would have to apply/tender along with all others tendering. Under no circumstances would a state government be automatically granted the role.
The NRG made no formal agreement on these matters at this stage. There will be further discussion through the NRG mail list and at the next meeting.
4. Other business
Dates for the next meeting will be canvassed on the mail list.
Last Updated: 09/03/2006 13:42
