response to auDA May 2001 2LD Proposals

In May 2001 auDA, responsible for administration of the dot-au domain space, called for public submissions on a consultation report regarding additional second level domains (2LDs) within the dot-au space.

The report followed an earlier report on which we made a separate submission (PDF).

That report was accompanied by separate documents regarding a model for competition in the delivery of domain registry/registrar services (Comp report) and a proposed dot-au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP report).

Caslon's submission is given below. Submissions by other bodies are here.

Submission from Jillian Slater, Consultant (Networks), Caslon Analytics Pty Ltd

The auDA Name Policy Advisory Panel consultation paper of May 2001 regarding New Second Level Domains in the Australian DNS is a commendable effort to accommodate the suggestions of individuals and organisations. However, particular proposals in the paper are antithetical to the Panel's final report and, more broadly, to auDA's charter.

auDA has industry and community support for development of a global best practice regime that is

• grounded in market realities rather than abstract notions of "conceptual diversity"
• transparent, i.e. easily articulated, readily intelligible and amenable to the automation of registration processes (thereby reducing costs, delays and disputes)
• practical and not likely to result in large-scale defensive registration or undermine community respect for administration of the dot-au domain space
• consistent with international practice, i.e. does not conflict with ccTLDs and gTLDs

auDA has not demonstrated a substantive need for additional 2LDs

The Panel has not identified systemic problems with existing 2LDs in the dot-au space, in particular needs that have not been satisfied and thus require new 2LDs.

It has not identified tangible support for new 2LDs that 'parallel' the new gTLDs (e.g. dot-biz, dot-name) or ccTLDs (e.g. dot-bz and dot-co). In considering diversity it has underestimated confusion and, I believe, overlooked significant practical concerns.

All the 2LDs in the May paper must be judged in terms of whether they address a substantive need and do not introduce new problems. The proposals do not meet those tests. In the absence of a market study auDA should be cautious in considering ideas that have an anecdotal basis.

It should instead reflect overseas experience in Belgium, Denmark, Canada and other spaces by opening up the dot-au space to the ccTLD level.

If auDA is committed in principle to introduction of additional 2LDs the choice of specific 2LDs should be deferred until auDA has sufficient resources to conduct an authoritative market study.

We should increase simplicity and ease of use, not complexity

Comments on the auDA DNS list, submissions to preceding auDA publications, user surveys and sighting of domain names used by Australian businesses, nongovernment organisations and individuals suggest that Australians want a simple, low-cost and transparent regime. "Conceptual diversity" is not a desirable or realistic policy objective

In response to rules that are not readily understood, anachronistic or perceived as 'gimmicky (for example the dropbear, wattle, emu 3LDs) some have voted with their feet - going overseas for domains that are perceived as credible and that can be acquired quickly at low cost. Why be identified as a dropbear when you can use a dot-net, a dot-com or a dot-org?

We should acknowledge overseas experience, for example that of Canada and Denmark, and seek to reduce the complexity of the dot-au space. We should use competition to lower costs while improving service quality. Concerns identified by Panel members will not be effectively addressed by adding additional 2LDs and thus increasing complexity.

Suggestions that services can be provided by volunteers (or that we should accept a lower level of service for specific 2LDs) are inconsistent with auDA's experience. They are also inconsistent with the investment in hardware, software and wetware needed by a timely, consistent, low-cost response to user demands.

     Personal 2LD

The need for a 'personal' 2LD, in parallel with the dot-name TLD, is unclear.

Experience with the existing 'id.au' suggests that there will be little support for a 'walled garden' approach. Consumers - the ultimate test - are instead acquiring dot-com, dot-net or dot-org or com-au domains or relying on ISP homepage services.

     Informal Associations

The 'informal associations' category is already served by the org, net and asn 2LDs, with many 'tribute' sites relying on ISP homepage services. There is no evidence that a new 'protest' 2LD will address substantive unsatisfied needs without introducing disproportionate new problems.

In introducing an informal associations 2LD auDA must demonstrate that the existing 2LDs do not work. Are large numbers of bodies failing to secure org, net or asn 2LDs? (If so, should rules for those 2LDs be changed rather than a new 2LD be created?)

     Open Slather

The 'open slather' 2LD is a poor surrogate for opening up the dot-au space.

Experience overseas suggests that some concerns about domain restrictions as an effective response to a proliferation of fraud or other crime are misplaced. It is important to recognise that consumers are increasingly savvy about online resources. Industry and academic studies demonstrate that many recognise that an address in cyberspace (like an address offline) is merely that. Users should and do recognise that a site is an indicator rather than an iron-clad guarantee that an entity is legitimate, will honour commercial undertakings and observe national legislation or industry guidelines.

In noting concerns from some law enforcement agencies we should recognise that there is substantial disagreement within government. We should be cautious about making domain registration so onerous, so restrictive, that Australians go 'offshore' - a major criticism of the current regime. Advice is available from auDA's overseas counterparts.

     Geographic and Gateway 2LDs

The justification for 'geographic' and 'gateway' 2LDs was questioned by the Panel's preceding report and by the World Intellectual Property Organization's interim report on The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System. Local government 'geographic' needs are satisfied by the org, com, asn, net and gov 2LDs. There seems little reason to add further complexity, more noise, through a spatial 2LD that implicitly involves a restricted list.

auDA is not in the business of building a search engine, portal or directory. There is no need to establish a gateway 2LD, whether on a broad industry basis or for every trade/service, particularly in parallel with dot-biz, dot-bz, dot-pro, dot-museum, dot-coop and other developments. Industry and academic studies of online resource identification consistently demonstrate that novice and experienced users rely on search engines, links, online directories and offline pointers.

There is no need to create multiple 2LDs as de facto directories, particularly since any validation process is likely to increase costs and raise competition concerns while failing to address questions of defensive registration. SME registrant response to creation of broad or sectoral directories is suggested by underwhelming support for various 'cybermalls' or 'yellow pages'. For professional or larger bodies we can afford to wait until uptake of the dot-biz and dot-pro TLDs is clearer.

Parts of the paper appear to be predicated on belief that a domain name has an overiding navigational and thus commercial value (either to be exploited or denied to a potential registrant). As noted in a previous comment about generic names, the value of a domain is essentially what you do with it. We caution about expectations regarding a reserved 'community' 2LD. Reserving a domain in an Australian geographic 2LD is for example irrelevant if an 'unauthorised' community organisation establishes and effectively promotes a dot-net or dot-org or dot-com site with content that addresses the needs of viewers and thus is perceived as 'the' site.

     Commercial 2LD

The proposed 'commercial' 2LD, in parallel with the com 2LD and new or existing TLDs, adds confusion rather than utility. It offers no benefits for consumers and uncertain value for registrants. It fails to recognise the likelihood of defensive registration and the potential increase in disputes.

     Telephones 2LD

Australia's involvement in international telecommunications standards activity conclusively demonstrates that there is little value in creating technological cul de sacs. Authorisation by auDA of an idiosyncratic scheme is inconsistent with the organisation's support for ICANN and the IETF. The proposal does not adequately recognise international developments such as ENUM and proprietary initiatives such as Webnum. It is inconsistent with the practice of telecommunications service providers in a competitive environment.

     Indigenous 2LD

I note the importance of the internet as a mechanism for social equity and proposals to establish a maori.nz domain space.

In considering the specific proposal I caution, however, about particular expectations. The DNS should not and cannot act as a surrogate for intellectual property protection or cultural promotion initiatives.

Concerns regarding the protection of Indigenous cultural property and traditional knowledge should be addressed through measures such as moral rights and sui generis Indigenous intellectual property legislation and the Australian indigenous authenticity label rather than through a closed/open 2LD.

***************

Views in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of clients or associates.



::