activity

This page looks at what auDA's done since its establishment. While its marketing has been lacklustre, the organisation has made significant steps in consultative policy development. That's impressive given its tiny secretariat and the range of views among directors and members of its large, somewhat unwieldy, advisory panels.

     strategic direction

As suggested on the preceding page of this profile, overall policy direction for auDA is set by the board.

That policy reflects advice from government (one example is here) and consultation with overseas bodies such as ICANN. It is informed by advice from the two auDA policy advisory panels and smaller working group, along with public comment in the form of responses to proposals published by those bodies. The significance of public comment is unclear from the published minutes of board meetings.

At its establishment auDA developed a consultation procedure (the current version is here) to underpin work by advisory bodies so that "the auDA policy development and recommendations process is open, transparent and responsive to community needs".

The organisation advertised for nominations for two panels, members being selected in the basis of "ability to represent a specific stakeholder group" (for example consumers, domain name users, registrars, internet service providers and intellectual property owners) and understanding of issues being reviewed by the particular panel. Operation of the panels was covered by a formal procedure document. Each panel had formal Terms of Reference.

The Panels drafted successive proposals, which were published on the auDA site as the basis for community comment. As we noted earlier in this profile, the number of submissions in response to the documents was small, for example there were fewer submissions than there were panel members and content ranged from a few lines to quite detailed analysis of principles or overseas practice.

The consultation process informed the Board in articulating a formal policy position. The expectation is that the Board, probably through committees or working groups, will develop more detailed documents that offer specific guidance, standards and operational protocols.

In line with the organisation's corporate charter, auDA has essentially been concerned with five issues:

• redelegation of responsibility for the dot-au space
• questions relating to the AUNIC database
• consideration of domain name rules and additional 2LDs within the dot-au space
• questions regarding the shape of competition in the provision of dot-au domain-related services
• arrangements for handling disputes about domain-related activity.

We've discussed carriage of particular issues in Analysphere, our weekly news site.

     redelegation

ICANN has proved reluctant to get involved in disputes regarding responsibility for administration of the ccTLDs, for example not intervening in disputes about what entity manages the top level domain for the Philippines, some African and Pacific states and some island territories.

However, it appears to be influenced by the view expressed by its Government Advisory Committee (GAC), chaired in 2001 by NOIE's chief executive and unsurprisingly based on perceptions that national domains are sovereign property of each state.

ICANN has approved the redelegation to CIRA, auDA's Canadian counterpart, of responsibility for the dot-ca space. In principle it is likely to endorse transfer of responsibility from an individual to a body that has government sanction (PDF) and that would appear to have a higher degree of accountability, transparency and community representation.

auDA can accordingly expect responsibility for the dot-au space and constituent 2LDs in the immediate future.

     AUNIC

In May 2000 auDA sought public tenders (PDF) for management of the AUNIC database, the central registry of dot-au domain names. The database was initially maintained by Geoff Huston, a volunteer.

On the basis of responses to the tender document and associated specifications AUNIC is now being hosted by a service provider on a nonprofit basis. The future shape of the database and responsibilities will be affected by auDA decisions regarding proposals (see below) for competition in the provision of registry services, including development of multiple registries.

     Names

In discussing the Domain Name System we've highlighted that apart from some basic rules, individual nations have considerable scope in how they structure their ccTLD and who/what can gain a domain and how requests for domains are handled. China for example has 37 2LDs, Norway has 33, most countries have five or six.

As domain administrator auDA inherited a suite of 2LDs and associated rules about eligibility that largely predated commercial interest in the net. Some rules were criticised as overly restrictive; others were praised as having inhibited the cybersquatting that's a feature of the dot-com gTLD that many people think of as "the web". Some of the 2LDs are moribund; there's been little demand for the 'dropbear.id' 2LD, one of the more inspired examples of geek wit.

The 31 member Name Policy Advisory Panel, in line with Terms of Reference here, produced a succession of discussion papers and reports that covered

• rules for eligibility for domain names in the dot-au space (for example whether registrations are restricted to corporate entities with a physical presence in Australia)
• the derivation of names (final report here)
• proposals for additional 2LDs (final report here)

The process reflected an evident lack of consensus across the Panel. That body's to be commended for streamlining inappropriate restrictions on eligibility and derivation but unfortunately seems to have been captured by enthusiasts for "conceptual diversity" in spawning new 2LDs rather than following the example of Canada, Belgium and other countries that have simplified their space.

     competition

Overall, competition in the provision of domain-related services does not grab the attention of most Australians. Among the digerati, however, there's been a recognition that dot-au registrations are significantly more expensive than overseas counterparts and that the introduction of competition - particularly for the 'com.au' 2LD, where MelbourneIT has monopoly - might significantly lower costs while increasing service quality.

The 32 member Competition Policy Advisory Panel, in line with Terms of Reference here, produced successive discussion papers and reports. Its Final Report is here.

The Panel's recommendations are intertwined with those of the Name Panel but broadly call for competition in the provision of registry and registrar services, conceivably including separate registries and registrars for each 2LD. The recommendations were endorsed in July.

     disputes

As a spin-off from the two Panels auDA established a smaller Dispute Resolution Working Group, which like the Panels published proposals and reports. Its final report, here, is one of the more impressive auDA documents.

The Group has recommended establishment of a dot-au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) and Rules, modelled on ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The recommendation reflects recognition that it is not appropriate for Australia to develop an idiosyncratic scheme for handling disagreements over ownership of domain names.

It is expected that policies will now be developed to cover disagreements between registrars, registries and third parties such as auDA (the latter will set and maintain policy but will not deliver services).

Features of the new regime are highlighted on the following page.




   next page  (the new regime)