RCRP Meeting - 30 September 2004
Maddocks
Level 7, 140 William St
Melbourne
Present: Simon Delzoppo, Jo Lim, David Thompson, Bruce Tonkin, Troy Trewin
Teleconference: Philip Argy, Bruce Arnold, Mark Suter
Apologies: Robert Sandali
Actions:
- JL to draft minutes.
- BT to draft text on pros and cons of single and multiple registry models.
- DT and JL to draft second Panel report, for discussion and finalisation on the Panel mail list.
Discussion:
1. First Public Consultation
The Panel received 4 public submissions in response to the First Public Consultation Report released on 3 September 2004 (available at http://www.auda.org.au/rcrp/rcrp-index/).
The following substantive issues were raised:
- multiple registries are seen as economically inefficient from a (small) registrar’s perspective (2 comments
- a request from the auDA Board to clarify the draft (EOI) process for dealing with new 2LDs
- a request from the auDA Board for further analysis of the pros and cons of the multiple and single registry models.
Multiple registry model
Panel members made the general
comment that the authors of public submissions appeared to have
misunderstood the thrust of the report with respect to the multiple registry
model. Paragraph 7.3 of the report stated the Panel's view that "the
competition model should continue to allow for (but not require) multiple
registry operators". In other words, the Panel is not seeking to achieve
multiple registry operators, but is merely leaving it open for more than one
registry operator if market conditions are suitable.
Comments received from registrars implied that a multiple registry model would be a change from the current situation. The Panel noted that there are already multiple registry operators in the .au domain: AusRegistry (asn.au, com.au, edu.au, id.au, gov.au, net.au, org.au), CSIRO (csiro.au) and auDA (.au, conf.au, info.au).
The Panel agreed to provide a more extensive discusssion of the pros and cons of the multiple and single registry models in its next report, as requested by the auDA Board. Panel members did not consider it necessary to engage an independent consultant for this purpose.
Proposed process for adding new 2LDs
The Panel
acknowledged the Board's concerns regarding probity and due process. The
Panel also accepted information provided by the auDA Board regarding the
costs of an EOI/tender process, and agreed that it would not be cost
effective to run a tender process for a new 2LD (or group of new 2LDs) with
a low projected volume of registrations.
The Panel therefore suggested the following process:
- auDA should determine a threshold of projected volume of registrations for a new 2LD. The Panel suggested a threshold of 200,000 domain names within the first 12 months of operation.
- The selection process for new 2LDs should include an assessment of the projected volume of registrations, and the selection panel should advise the auDA Board whether it considers the new 2LD to be below or above the threshold.
- If the new 2LD is considered to be below the threshold, then it would not be cost effective for auDA to run an EOI/tender process. The Panel proposed that the incumbent registry operator should be required to operate the new 2LD until the next periodic tender, at which point the new 2LD would be bundled together with existing 2LDs.
- If the new 2LD is considered to be above the threshold, then there would most likely be sufficient scale to justify a competitive process to determine registry operations. The Panel agreed that auDA should seek its own advice about the relative cost benefits of an EOI, an EOI plus tender, or tender alone.
The Panel noted that the purpose of the threshold is to determine the process for selecting a new 2LD registry operator, it is not intended to dictate the outcome. It is not the Panel's intention to mandate multiple registry operators above the threshold; the threshold is merely a guide to expected market behaviour.
With respect to the incumbent registry operator being required to operate the new 2LD, Panel members noted the possibility that a non-cooperative incumbent registry operator could seek to charge an unreasonable price for the new 2LD. The Panel suggested that the next registry licence agreement should include provisions requiring the registry operator to run new 2LDs within the same pricing structure as the existing 2LDs.
Panel members considered it unreasonable to require the incumbent to take on a new 2LD within 12 months of the expiration of its current licence term. As it is likely that auDA would conduct the periodic tender approximately 12 months prior to the expiration of the current licence term, it was suggested that the periodic tender should be the cut-off for introducing new 2LDs to the incumbent registry.
2. Next Steps
The Panel will continue to discuss and finalise its second (draft final) report on the mail list. The report will be released for a further round of public consultation before it is delivered to the auDA Board.
