Overview Submissions

response to auDA Competition & Name Policy reports In February 2001 auDA, responsible for administration of the dot-au domain space, called for submissions on reports by its Competition Policy and Names Policy advisory panels. The reports dealt with the introduction of competition in registry/registrar services and changes to the existing policy on domain naming. The full text of the Caslon response is here (PDF). The Executive Summary appears below Introduction Caslon Analytics Pty Ltd commends the auDA Competition Policy and Name Policy advisory panels in working towards a regime that reflects the realities of 2001 and beyond. Overall, both reports are endorsed and we look forward to timely implementation of an enhanced policy that embodies auDA's charter for a competitive, functional and self-regulated dot-au domain space. Support for an enhanced Regime auDA has a clear mandate for early introduction of an enhanced regime that reflects individual and business expectations and that draws on overseas experience, in particular that of Canada, the UK and Belgium. Benefits from introduction of competition in the provision of registration services include significantly reduced registration prices (considered by many Australians to be a substantial disincentive to going online) and the development of value-added services. MelbourneIT's support for competition in dot-com, dot-net and dot-org registration services suggests that at a global level it fully acknowledges those benefits-which should accordingly apply to the dot-au space. Competition Competition Policy We support proposals for the introduction of multiple registrars in competition against each other (except for 'closed' domains such as 'gov' and 'edu'), with a single registry. Competition relates to registrars, not to registries. Introduction of competition is inextricably associated with effective dispute resolution mechanisms, which should not be delayed or treated as an afterthought. Those mechanisms should reflect ICANN's UDRP and bodies such as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman; it is not necessary or practical to establish an idiosyncratic scheme that imposes inordinate costs, is not transparent or conflicts with global intellectual property developments. Potential entrants into the industry (ie the registry operator and registrars) must demonstrate their capability and engage in pre-competition testing of systems. Viable industry self-regulation necessitates adequate staffing and funding of auDA and of dispute resolution bodies. Names Policy We advise against the proliferation of 2LDs as contrary to the universality and transparency of the DNS. It also potentially conflicts with developments such as the dot-pro TLD. Instead we urge auDA to adopt the Canadian model, opening up the dot-au space. We do not endorse continued restrictions on generic or geographic names. Overseas practice suggests that the supposed advantages of generic names are significantly overstated; auDA should rely on the market rather than attempting to second-guess consumer, operator and investor preferences. Geographic restrictions implicitly penalise those businesses and individuals with 'geographic' names such as Appleby. Mechanisms to address 'passing off' are in existence and consumers already differentiate between dot-gov and other 2LDs. Increasing consumer sophistication means that the idiosyncratic 'id' 2LD scheme has been a failure. We see no reason why individuals should not gain standard names. Similarly, the restriction to Australian entities is unnecessary; any concerns can be addressed through existing legal mechanisms, through dispute resolution arrangements and the warranty provisions proposed by auDA. In practice the 'first come first served' principle, underpinned by the UDRP model, offers the most advantages to Australia. auDA will inevitably face criticism whatever regime is instituted. It cannot please all parties; significant delay through further consultation or elaboration of what one auDA representative described as "a distinctively Australian" regime is not appropriate.