NRG Meeting - 29 August 2003
Maddocks, 140 William St, Melbourne
Present: Chris Disspain (auDA), Jo Lim (auDA), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ISOC-AU), George Fong (ISOC-AU), Natasha McGuire (NSW), Cheryl Hardy (VIC), Ian Short (SA), Kerry Webb (ACT), Allan Lebusque (NOIE), Paul Harcombe (CGNA)
Apologies: QLD, WA, NT, TAS
Actions:
- auDA to circulate draft minutes and amended papers for items 3a and 3b, and canvass proposed date/time for next NRG meeting.
- auDA to draft short background paper for circulation to local government and other stakeholders.
- NM to circulate material in relation to web site content.
- auDA to draft domain name policy rules based on discussion at meeting, for further consideration at next meeting.
Discussion:
1. Welcome and introduction
There were roundtable introductions.
2. Background
NM (NSW) gave a brief summary of the origins of the OCOS proposal and the process that led auDA to approve the proposal in November 2002. NM advised that, due to budget cuts, the NSW pilot project would now proceed with one test case (Bathurst) instead of four test cases. KW advised that, also due to budget cuts, the ACT is no longer in a position to contribute a test case to the pilot project.
3a. Role of the NRG
The agenda paper was approved by the NRG, subject to the following amendments:
- under Terms of Reference: add new dot point "consider outcomes from the NSW pilot project for national policy implications"
- under Membership: change second dot point "through the Online Council" to "endorsed by the Online Council", and add new dot point "community representation".
Local government is represented on the NRG through the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). It was noted that ALGA's participation in the NRG will be very important, given that local governments will most likely play a key role in the allocation system for community domain names.
It was agreed that the NRG will conduct its business primarily by teleconference, with face-to-face meetings convened only when necessary. The NRG will aim to meet during the first week of every month; mid-week afternoon meeting times are preferred.
3b. Advisory Forum proposal
The agenda paper was approved by the NRG, subject to an amendment under Participants. The purpose of the Advisory Forum is to provide a consultation mechanism with key stakeholders. It was therefore agreed that the Advisory Forum should not be "open slather", but would operate more effectively if participants were appointed by the NRG on the basis of appropriate interests and expertise.
It was noted that NRG minutes and papers will be published on the auDA web site and all policy recommendations will be issued for general public comment, providing an opportunity for people outside the Advisory Forum to follow progress and participate.
4a. Implementation issues
AL (NOIE) advised that although the Commonwealth does not have a role in implementation, it is possible that future developments regarding the administration of Australian external territories may have an impact on the geographic naming schema.
The agenda paper was discussed and the following points noted:
1. Domain name policy rules - discussed under agenda item 4b (below).
2. Registry / registrar functions.
The NRG's view is that there is no
reason why community domain names would not be able to operate under the
same user-pays system that applies to open 2LDs. The domain name fee would
be set through the registry tender process. Prospective registry operators
would determine a fee that enables them to meet the cost of running a
registry to auDA's technical standards over the term of the contract.
The domain name policy rules will be an important input to the registry tender. In general terms, the more restrictive and complex the policy rules, the lower the number of domain names that will be registered; the less domain names registered, the more each one will cost.
3. Role of state/territory governments.
There is a consensus view that
state/territory governments (with the exception of NSW) do not have the
funding or resources to play an operational role in the allocation of
geographic domain names at this early stage. This view may change when
results are available from the pilot. However, the NRG agreed that it is
important that governments, as trustees for the community, are involved in
the process in some way in order to avoid potential misuse of a significant
community asset.
The NRG noted that local government is in a better position than state government to determine issues of community representation. The NRG felt that it would therefore be extremely desirable to build some form of endorsement by local council into the domain name application process. It was noted that local councils are already familiar with existing processes for resolving community naming disputes, and these might be used or adapted for the geographic 2LDs.
It was acknowledged that involving local government in the domain name application process would most likely result in a higher domain name fee for communities. However, the NRG's view was that the additional costs would be offset by a more robust system that serves to protect community interests.
4. Community web site management issues.
It was agreed that community
web site management issues fall outside the scope of the NRG. However, given
that one of the key licence conditions for geographic domain names will be
that they can only be used for community web sites, the NRG should consider
developing some basic principles for community web sites.
NM advised that as part of the NSW pilot project, open source tools are being produced which will assist communities in developing their web sites. The focus is on encouraging best practice, rather than imposing a standard template.
5. Complaints-handling / dispute resolution.
The NRG agreed that
registrant eligibility complaints and disputes must be resolved locally. One
of the reasons for including local government endorsement in the application
process is to help to avoid eligibility disputes, or resolve them at an
early stage. It was noted that not all eligibility disputes may be able to
be resolved, in which case the domain name would not be allocated to any
party.
6. Overall model and system for geographic 2LDs.
The model for
geographic 2LDs will require final approval from the auDA Board before it
can be implemented. CD (auDA) advised that auDA is aiming to release the
geographic 2LDs by 30 June 2004.
4b. Domain name policy rules
The agenda paper was discussed and the following points noted:
1. What domain names should be available for registration?
Address
Localities include suburbs and towns. PH (CGNA) advised that there are
approximately 30,000 Address Localities that would be entered into the
registry database as geographic domain names. Communities would only be able
to register geographic domain names that are listed in the registry, they
would not be able to create their own name.
The auDA Board has rejected a 4LD naming structure (ie. suburb.town.state.au), meaning that all suburbs and towns must be registered as 3LDs. In the case of conflict between duplicate names of towns and suburbs within one state, it was suggested that the town would be entitled to the "stand alone" name, and the suburb could be hyphenated to the relevant town (eg. richmond.nsw.au and richmond-sydney.nsw.au). Hyphenated names would be entered into the registry from the outset, to avoid any confusion. PH advised that new place naming rules prohibit duplication, so it should not be a problem in future.
The NRG noted that registrants would have the ability to set up sub-domains under their own domain name (eg. carlton.melbourne.vic.au or hairdresser.newcastle.nsw.au), unless specifically prevented by the domain name policy rules.
The NRG agreed that non-Address Locality names (eg. names of cultural significance) will not be included in the initial release of geographic domain names. The allocation and use of these "special" names will be considered by the NRG, once the model for Address Locality names has been implemented and tested.
2. Who should be eligible to register a domain name?
The NRG agreed that the registrant must be:
- a legally registered, not-for-profit entity; and
- representative of the local community.
Legal entities that fit the first criterion include companies limited by guarantee, incorporated associations and registered cooperatives.
The second criterion was considered more important that the first. In other words, the type of entity doesn't really matter, provided that it is truly representative of the community (for the purpose of holding the domain name licence and operating a community web site). The NRG's view is that the best way of demonstrating community representation would be a requirement that the applicant entity obtain local council endorsement.
Local council endorsement would also help to resolve disputes between multiple applicants for the same domain name. It was suggested that a "mistaken" endorsement by local council could be corrected at the time of domain name renewal. This raised the issue of whether or not all registrants would need to be re-endorsed by local council in order to renew their domain name, or only those registrants about whom a formal complaint had been lodged.
The NRG discussed whether local councils themselves should be eligible to hold a geographic domain name licence. One of the stated aims of the OCOS proposal was to avoid mere replication of existing local government Internet presence under the gov.au 2LD. Therefore, the NRG considered that it would be preferable to specifically exclude local councils from eligibility. If local councils wished to register a geographic domain name, they would be required to establish a separate entity for that purpose.
The NRG thought that there should be no limit on the number of domain name licences that could be held by a single registrant, provided the registrant is sufficiently representative of the communities for those domain names. Resource-sharing would help to keep the costs down, especially for rural and regional communities.
3. What terms and conditions of use should be imposed on the registrant?
The NRG agreed that it is not appropriate for the domain name licence terms
and conditions to prescribe mandatory web site content elements. It was
suggested that best practice guidelines would be a more effective way of
assisting communities to build suitable web sites.
It was noted that web site content monitoring is a difficult issue that, as with many other issues discussed during the meeting, will require the input of local government.
Other business
PH advised that new addressing standards are being promoted among local government. This would be a good opportunity to raise awareness about the geographic 2LDs.
Indigenous names were discussed. CD advised that auDA's new 2LD process may provide an opportunity for indigenous names to be accommodated within a separate 2LD (eg. ind.au).
© .au Domain Administration Limited ABN - 38 079 009 340.
