Review of restriction on geographic names in com.au anFrom: Jillian Slater Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 2004 9:09 PM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Subject: Review of restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au 2LDs The following comments are provided by Caslon Analytics (www.caslon.com.au), which supports early removal of the existing restriction. BACKGROUND Caslon is an internet research and analysis specialist that has advised Australian and overseas government agencies, businesses and not-for-profit entities about domain name regulation. It has also advised about online resource identification issues (eg how expert and novice users search the web and interpret names in the gTLD, ccTLD and .au 2LD spaces). Caslon's credibility has been recognised through citation by leading academic institutions (eg Harvard Law School and the Sorbonne), by government agencies (including Australian consumer protection agencies) and by bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences. THE REVIEW Caslon welcomes the review of the existing restriction on geographic names in the .com and .net second level domains (2LDs) within the .au space. The review is an appropriate corollary of the auDA Board's decision to create eight new community geographic 2LDs. Names in those 2LDs will be restricted to community portals. WHY THE RESTRICTION SHOULD BE REMOVED Removal of the existing restriction in the .com and .net 2LDs is appropriate on the basis of equity and community interest. Removal is consistent with auDA's emphasis on the integrity and sustainability of .au administration. Removal is also consistent with auDA's successful removal of restrictions on generic names. It is clear from submissions to the New Names Advisory Panel, postings on the DNS List and responses to the current call for comment that some potential registrants have been disadvantaged by the restriction (eg because a business name is the same as a 'postcode name', often one in a different state/territory). Although detailed statistics over the past decade are unavailable, on the basis of mapping SME uptake of domain names across Australia we believe that several thousand potential registrants have unsuccessfully sought to register restricted names or would register them if that was permitted. (That is consistent with the number of geographic names and upwards of two businesses with a geographic identifier in most locations.) Removal of the inequity is desirable. It does not pose risks to the stability of the DNS. It does not pose substantive consumer protection or other concerns outside the scope of trade practices, intellectual property and other law. Removal is practical because auDA has created the new community geographic 2LDs, discrete spaces for community purposes that are independent of the .net and .com 2LDs. It has been asserted - in particular by advocates who do not appear to have studied the auDA documentation - that the existing restriction must be maintained to ensure the effectiveness of the new geographic 2LDs. A rationale is that consumers will mistake sites in one of the new 2LDs with 'corresponding' names in the .com and .net 2LDs. The likelihood and significance of such confusion appears low, given the nature of the community portals as discussed by the National Reference Group and the increasing sophistication of Australia's online population. In polling over the past two years we have identified substantial support in the community for removal of the restriction. Potential registrants and users of sites consider that registration of geographic names in the 'commercial' 2LDs should be allowed because it is legitimate, is desirable, does not conflict with the 'close and substantial connection' and 'first come first served' principles underpinned by the auDRP, and does not prevent growth/use of portals in the community geographic 2LDs. Our assessment is that : + any confusion on a site by site basis will be momentary + confusion can be minimised by effective online and offline marketing of the new geographic 2LDs and constituent portals + deceptive activity can be effectively addressed through a range of existing legislation + potential .com.au and .net.au registrants (some of whom applied for restricted names several years ago) are being needlessly penalised merely because their business name coincides with a geographical identifier + claims of widespread support for continuation of the restriction are problematical A Caslon Analytics representative would be pleased to discuss any of the above comments in more detail. -- Jillian Slater Caslon Analytics Pty Ltd internet research, analysis, strategies