response to auDA Dispute Resolution Policy proposals

In May 2001 auDA, responsible for administration of the dot-au domain space, called for public submissions on a proposed dot-au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP report).

That report was accompanied by separate documents regarding proposals for additional Second Level Domains within the dot-au space (2LD report) and a recommended competition model (Comp report) regarding the introduction of competition in the delivery of registry and registrar services within the dot-au domain space.

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

Submission from Jillian Slater, Caslon Analytics Pty Ltd

Ms Jo Lim
Chief Policy Officer
au Domain Administration Ltd

I am writing to endorse the overall recommendations in the auDA Dispute Resolution Working Group report of May 2001 regarding the Proposed .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) and Rules.

I welcome the Group's emphasis on a dispute resolution regime that is consistent with the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers and that is an integral feature of administration of the dot-au domain space.

I am conscious of criticisms of the UDRP and its interpretation by alternative dispute resolution providers. I am writing because such criticisms are sometimes perceived to have strong industry or community support and may thus influence consideration by the auDA Board of the DWRG proposal.

Overall, the UDRP offers a mechanism that

• accommodates community concerns about equity in the registration of domain names

• does not impose inappropriate legal costs on disputants

• recognises the concerns of business and other entitities regarding intellectual property.

It assumes that disagreements about the identification of online resources are situated within national and international legal frameworks, accordingly rejecting notions that cyberspace should be unaffected by trademark or investment decisions.

Alignment of the dot-au dispute resolution policy and rules will, I believe, encourage investment, facilitate community understanding (and thus support) of the regime, and assist best practice through comparison with ADRS decisions in other countries.

In my March 2001 submission regarding the Name and Competition Policy Panels I commented on the importance of dispute resolution mechanisms being adequately promoted and in place when competition is introduced late this year. The auDRP is not peripheral or something that might be left to individual registrars. It instead requires the support of auDA, business, industry bodies and entities such as the National Office for the Information Economy with an interest in e-services.

My expectation is that auDA will adopt a flexible approach and that the auDRP will accordingly be enhanced to reflect local and overseas developments such as the World Intellectual Property Organization's report regarding The Recognition of Rights & The Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System. auDA has a key role in ensuring all Australians have access to the benefits of the information society.

Views expressed in this submission are those of the author.

Jillian Slater
Caslon Analytics Pty Ltd