response to auDA Competition Model proposals

In May 2001 auDA, responsible for administration of the dot-au domain space, called for public submissions on a consultation report regarding its Recommended Competition Model for the .au Domain Space.

That report was accompanied by separate documents regarding proposals for additional Second Level Domains within the dot-au space (2LD report) and a proposed dot-au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP report).

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

Response by Caslon Analytics to May 2001 Consultation Report on a Recommended Competition Model for the .au Domain Space

Establishment of a best practice competition regime is of critical importance for the Australian community, business, institutions and nonprofit organisations. The Competition Panel's May 2001 consultation report is a further step in auDA's progress to that goal and is thus warmly commended.

In previous submissions we have highlighted particular considerations such as the importance of adequately resourcing auDA, increasing awareness of registration processes and principles, and ensuring that the auDRP is in place when competition is introduced. The following paragraphs address general and specific concerns.

The Competition Environment

Much discussion on the auDA DNS list and in other fora has centred on the stability of the dot-au DNS. We agree that is of critical importance. However, technical 'legacy' issues should not prevent auDA's encouragement of innovation by domain service providers. (We use the latter term deliberately, as there is a clear trend across the globe for registrars to address user needs by providing a range of value-added services rather than solely processing registrations.)

auDA's charter is founded on recognition that connectivity is a social good. For many businesses and organisations the internet now has the same importance as the telephone. It has become a significant part of many lives. Although auDA is small, it has a significant role in facilitating the growth of a vibrant internet services sector and assisting access by all Australians. In considering the Panel's consultation report it is important to recognise that auDA's impact will extend beyond registries and registrars. Forward-looking policy and effective implementation are essential.

Key features of that policy and practice are

• an emphasis on service
• simplification of the dot-au space, rather than generating further noise through the addition of superfluous 2LDs
• removal of arbitrary restrictions, such as those relating to generic or geographic names
• recognition that competition takes place between service providers, not between 2LDs
• integration of name, dispute and competition policy
• clear separation between policy setting/review and operational activity
• an aspiration towards global best practice, through for example industry codes, a comprehensive accreditation process and performance reviews, and encouragement of innovation and investment in provision of domain services
• grounding in market realities rather than abstract notions of "conceptual diversity" that encourage defensive registration or undermine community respect for administration of the dot-au domain space.

Simplification

Simplification is a key aspect of competition policy decisions. It is particularly important because it assists community understanding of how the dot-au space is structured and administered. It also assists the automation of processes, which serves to significantly lower costs, reduce delays and encourage consistency - three major criticisms of the current regime.

Experience in Canada and other domain spaces suggests that simplification results in tangible benefits and, contrary to some claims, does not lead to increased fraud or disputes. It is consistent with how novice and experienced users actually identify online resources, as distinct from assertions about how users should or might navigate.

That is important because there is a view that competition in the dot-au space involves the creation of 'stovepipes'. We believe that view is misplaced and if adopted by auDA will result in continuing movement of potential registrants to more attractive cc/gTLDs.

Measures of effectiveness

Given auDA's policy goals, competition involves the delivery of services by competing service providers, not a proliferation of additional 2LDs. The number of 2LDs added to the dot-au space is not a relevant measure of competition and we should be wary about 'cloning' existing problems associated with registrar dominance of a particular space.

Competition between registries (or indeed the number of registry operators) is less important than the quality of service provided to registrants.

A more pertinent measure is whether registrant satisfaction has increased, turnaround time has decreased and charges have fallen significantly.

It is important that auDA should look beyond 2001 and encourage ongoing growth of the domain services industry in response to user needs. We would prefer to see a small number of world-class registrars delivering high quality services at prices that are attractive to Australians (and to overseas entities seeking a domain for a local or international presence) rather than a large number of registrars offering a poor service.

Measures of effectiveness are more important than simple counts of domain service providers. A key test is whether service quality has improved and additional services are available, not the number of registrars or the number of registries.

Resourcing

That concern with service should also be reflected in adequate resourcing of auDA during and after the transition towards competition.

Resourcing is a prerequisite for effective competition. The organisation must be in a position to properly identify, articulate, apply and review technical standards and codes of practice on an ongoing basis.

It must facilitate industry and community understanding of domain administration through active communication with a range of interests, something that has been significantly inhibited by restricted staffing and funding.

In carrying out its tasks it is reasonable for auDA to establish accreditation fees and allocate costs among registrars on 'volume' basis.

Registry/ies

In noting the Name Policy Panel's recommendation we remain agnostic about a single versus multiple registries. Our concerns instead relate to the operation of any registry.

If an entity is to perform registry (technical) and registrar (market) functions we encourage particular care to ensure an effective, visible separation of those activities.

Given the above emphasis on service, it is conceivable that registry operations might be delivered by a commercial domain service provider. That provider might be selected through a competitive tender process and operate on a fixed fee for service basis. Operation of a registry is not innately restricted to non-commercial entities; 'stability' does not preclude innovation. Potential concerns can be addressed through the selection process and effective monitoring.

Registrars

We appreciate concerns regarding the edu 2LD. However, in considering competition aspects of the latest Name Panel report we caution against entrenching particular associations or other bodies as de facto registrars for individual stovepipes, something that is anti-competitive. Judging by past performance that does not reflect the needs of potential registrants or the wider community. Business and consumer acceptance of industry 'cybermalls' and 'yellow pages' has for example been underwhelming.

Concern with the technical stability of the DNS should extend to the viability of the domain service industry. The legislation underpinning auDA's operation recognises both the value of self-regulation and the distortions that can result from the dominance of one or two service providers. We assume that auDA will provide the prerequisites for ongoing industry growth by

• clearly articulating and consistently applying domain administration policies
• establishing standards that are driven by user needs rather than some sense of "conceptual diversity" or Australian exceptionalism
• using accreditation processes that reflect the investment needed for delivery of services over a period of years, that encourage innovation and encompass the Panel's recommendations regarding relations between registrars and agents
• working closely with industry bodies in the development and application of codes of practice
• fostering education or other measures that encourage understanding of registration practices and principles
• adopting a 'light touch' approach to regulation on a day to day basis but maintaining a close awareness of industry developments in Australia and overseas so that it is not faced with the collapses recently experienced by regulators in the telecommunications and insurance sectors
• acquiring the resources needed for action if information indicates that intervention is required
• aspiring to best practice in its own operation, in particular dealings with members and industry bodies, engagement with the wider community and prioritisation of all corporate expenditure.