26 September 2000

Tjakamarra Room
Ground Floor
38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest, Canberra 


Present: Philip Argy, Evan Arthur, Steve Fielding, Tony Hill, Ron Ipsen, Ian Johnston, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jo Lim,
Cliff Reardon, Daniel Rechtman (until 4.30pm), Peter Reynolds, Josh Rowe, Cathy Thawley, Galen Townson, Derek Whitehead, Anthony Wyatt (proxy for Geoff Morrison)

Teleconference: Kitty Davis, Brandon Gradstein, Leanne Schultz

Apologies: Sandra Davey, Mark Davidson, Odette Gourley, Rowan Groves, Ian Halliday, Stuart Hamilton, Keith Inman, Christine Page-Hanify, Steve Pretzel, David Purdue, Ross Wilson, Michael Wolnizer

Observers: George Michaelson (Competition Model Advisory Panel), Jeremy Thomas (NOIE), Nikki Vajrabukka (NOIE)

Actions:

  1. DW and JL to draft minutes from meeting (including whiteboard diagram).
  2. DW and JL to revise and combine working group reports into a single report, and circulate to Panel members via the closed list.

Decisions:

Review of Working Group reports 
1. The working group reports will be revised according to comments made at the meeting, and combined into a single report (ie. a draft public consultation report).

2. The report will follow the working group pro forma, identifying issues and listing pros and cons for each proposal. Where possible, the report will also highlight the practical implications for registrars and end-users. A glossary section will also be included.

Next meeting
3. A Panel meeting on 17 October 2000 in Sydney (in addition to the meeting scheduled for 31 October in Melbourne) will be canvassed among members via the closed list.

Discussion:

1 Confirmation of 29 August Minutes
Panel members confirmed the minutes from the meeting on 29 August 2000, previously circulated via the closed list, subject to minor amendments.

2 Review of Working Group reports
The Panel considered each proposal in the working group reports.

a Right Names
The Panel agreed to further consider and include in its forthcoming public discussion paper a number of proposals relating to allocation and eligibility requirements for domain name licences.

b Legal names
Consideration of these issues was deferred due to the late circulation of the report.

c Names with Fences
The Panel proposed the following "stop list" approach to generic, geographic and objectionable names:

  1. A working definition of ‘generic’, ‘geographic’ and ‘objectionable’ will be developed by auDA, with reference to appropriate sources (eg. Yellow Pages index).
  2. Domain names that have to date been rejected by the current registrars for being generic, geographic or objectionable will be placed on a stop list.
  3. New applications for domain names that may be considered generic, geographic or objectionable may be referred to auDA.
  4. If the domain name is determined by auDA (according to the definition) to be generic, geographic or objectionable, then it will be added to the stop list.
  5. Applicants can challenge domain names on the stop list, and auDA will determine whether they should continue to remain on the stop list or whether changed circumstances mean the name can be permitted.

d Moving Names Around
The Panel agreed that domain names holders do not own the domain name, they have a licence to use the domain name for a specified period. Renewal of a domain name licence should be subject to payment of the required fee and continued eligibility to use the domain name.

It was suggested that issues regarding transfer of domain names fall more within the purview of the Competition Model Advisory Panel (CMAP). Accordingly, the Panel referred these issues to the CMAP.

e Disputes about Names
The Panel agreed that all 2LDs should have some type of dispute resolution policy, however the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) proposed by the working group should apply to open 2LDs only (ie. administrators of closed 2LDs should be free to modify the UDRP to suit their own purposes).

f New Names
The Panel considered that, although there was in-principle agreement about the likelihood of new 2LDs in the .au domainspace, it would be sensible to defer consideration of these issues until after the ICANN meeting in November.

3 Other issues

a Technical Issues
Panel members discussed the recommendations outlined in the Technical Issues paper.

b Retrospectivity
This issue was deferred until the next Panel meeting.

c Gateways
This was discussed under agenda item 2c.

4 Public consultation process
This agenda item was deferred until the next Panel meeting.

5 Coordination with the Competition Model Advisory Panel

George Michaelson, co-chair of the CMAP, joined the meeting in the afternoon. Panel members noted the close linkages between some of the issues they have been considering (particularly with regard to transfer of domain names and registrar practices) and the work of the CMAP.

Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:15