engagement

This page looks at auDA's engagement with stakeholders.

It covers -

• introduction -
• assessing responsiveness
• the shape of engagement with the 'dot-au community'
• engaging with network managers - expectations about what a ccTLD manager can and should do
• participation and legitimacy - community consultation and outreach
• benchmarks
• online fora - the DNS List and other online fora

     introduction

The preceding page suggested that auDA's authority as a private sector entity exercising quasi-governmental powers is founded

• on endorsement by the federal government
• more diffusely on recognition by ICANN
• on its success in securing the commitment of commercial entities and advocacy groups with differing interests and capacity to influence other stakeholders
• the absence of a credible alternative.

Challenges to its legitimacy have on occasion been noisy but unsuccessful and arguably have not been truly representative of the community at large. auDA's performance is of interest for management by staff and the board (with clear support by its members) of legal challenges and of pressure by different governments and commercial interests.

It has handled attempts at subversion and criticism that is off target or simply uninformed and that rarely offers realistic suggestions for improvement. One of the sillier comments in 2006 for example was the claim by 'The Chief' that

In Australia, domain name registration gives the appearance of a masked highwayman on the only train line into town

That criticism apparently assumes effective regulation is free. It also mixes metaphors: we assume that a bandit, masked or otherwise, who had somehow strayed from the highway onto one of several rail lines leading into town would either get off or get run over by the locomotive.

     the shape of engagement

The organisation has made efforts to encourage community participation, with presentations at various fora and a 'DNS' discussion list (with around 300 subscribers). It has also slashed membership fees, reduced in 2003 from $100 to $20 for the 'Demand' class.

     engaging with network managers and users

In discussing online politics and governance, we have suggested that expectations about large-scale ongoing electronic plebiscites, digital 'town halls' or day to day participation by end-users of the net are arguably misplaced. Most people are concerned to get on with their lives: they are indifferent to network administration or governance questions except when something such as their phone doesn't work, they are deluged by spam or costs increase.

     government

auDA operates under Australian company law as a nonprofit industry body. As part of the national 'co-regulatory' arrangements for telecommunication services its activities are subject to trade practices and telecommunications law such as the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Act 2000 that provides a "safety net" with government intervention if necessary.

Its constitution provides that if auDA is dissolved

the right to administer the .au ccTLD must either be transferred on to another entity nominated or approved by the Commonwealth of Australia or, in the absence of such approval, be transferred to the Commonwealth.

Although auDA is not government owned or controlled it was established under official auspices, was initially serviced by the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), and has been recurrently endorsed by the federal communications minister, having a closer relationship with government than other industry bodies.

Its activity since establishment has been closely watched by the federal government and some of the state governments. Several of the auDA working parties featured a NOIE representative and the NSW state government was particularly forceful in advocating the ill-conceived 'geographic' 2LD. In 2004 the federal government's Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) released a discussion paper on a Review of the Relationship Between Trade Marks & Business Names, Company Names & Domain Names (PDF).

     participation and legitimacy

Criticism of auDA was initially loud, although often uninformed and arguably without substantial support among the internet industries or wider community, and has not been sustained. Few of the critics seem to have bothered to study the auDA documentation or respond to the organisation's calls for public comment on proposals.

Two sites that appeared in the second half of 2001 were auDAWatch (apparently extinct by August 2002) and the DNS Action Group (DNSAG), the latter featured the interesting Who Controls .org.au? Where domain name policy and law collide paper (PDF).

Overall, the major form of participation is through its advisory panels (discussed on the following page) and smaller working groups, which have sought public responses to particular proposals. The number of responses has generally been lower than the number of people on the panels, despite recurrent invitations to contribute advice/criticism. (auDA has archived a full set of submissions on its site.)

The organisation faces a particular challenge in securing the support of interested bodies while introducing competition in the delivery of services and raising community awareness.

Overall, its small resources and emphasis on establishing an effective new regime mean that it has been characterised as reactive rather than engaging with the public at large. From that perspective it arguably has had indifferent success in communicating its mission, accordingly - if unfairly - being criticised as unrepresentative, ineffectual or not legitimate.

One registrar, who strangely complained that "the rules disenfranchise a vast portion of the australian population", grizzled that

the community input has been shall we say rather biased by the usual set of wannabe public heros [sic].

Most of those criticisms initially coalesced around redelegation of responsibility for the dot-au space, ie transfer from Robert Elz to auDA, and appear to have abated. They have been replaced by claims, often of dubious plausibility, from some registrars who assume that what is good for the registrar industry - indeed what is only good for the registrar industry - is good for Australia.

Other observers have suggested that there has been little interest by the wider community because the regime works. There has therefore been no reason for sustained community involvement.






   next page  (activity)