activity and future

This page provides an overview of what auDA has done since its establishment and its vision for the future.

It covers -

• strategic direction
• redelegation - patriation of dot-au
• AUNIC - enhancing the national registry
• names - changes to registration requirements and 2LDs
• competition - reducing monopolistic service provision
• disputes - establishment of a disputes resolution regime
• future directions

Although its marketing has been low-key compared to its Canadian counterpart (perhaps attributable to the organisation's small resources and concentration on other challenges), auDA has made significant steps in consultative policy development.

That is impressive given its tiny secretariat and the range of views among directors and members of its large (representative but somewhat unwieldy) advisory panels.

     strategic direction

As suggested on the preceding page of this profile, overall policy direction for auDA is set by the board.

That policy reflects advice from government (one example is here) and consultation with overseas bodies such as ICANN. It is informed by advice from the two auDA policy advisory panels and smaller working group, along with public comment in the form of responses to proposals published by those bodies. The significance of public comment is unclear from the published minutes of board meetings.

At its establishment auDA developed a consultation procedure (the current version is here) to underpin work by advisory bodies so that "the auDA policy development and recommendations process is open, transparent and responsive to community needs".

The organisation advertised for nominations for two panels, members being selected in the basis of "ability to represent a specific stakeholder group" (for example consumers, domain name users, registrars, internet service providers and intellectual property owners) and understanding of issues being reviewed by the particular panel.

Operation of the panels was covered by a formal procedure document. Each panel had formal Terms of Reference.

The Panels drafted successive proposals, which were published on the auDA site as the basis for community comment. As we noted earlier in this profile, the number of submissions in response to the documents was small, for example there were fewer submissions than there were panel members and content ranged from a few lines to quite detailed analysis of principles or overseas practice.

The consultation process informed the Board in articulating a formal policy position. The expectation is that the Board, probably through committees or working groups, will develop more detailed documents that offer specific guidance, standards and operational protocols.

In line with the organisation's corporate charter, auDA has essentially been concerned with five issues:

• redelegation of responsibility for the dot-au space
• questions relating to the AUNIC database
• consideration of domain name rules and additional 2LDs within the dot-au space
• questions regarding the shape of competition in the provision of dot-au domain-related services
• arrangements for handling disputes about domain-related activity.

     redelegation

As suggested in the discussion of auDA's history, a major achievement is arguably its patriation of the the dot-au space, with responsibility passing from an individual to a body that is formally accountable, operates transparently and is underpinned by national communications legislation.

ICANN has proved reluctant to get involved in disputes regarding responsibility for administration of the ccTLDs, for example not intervening in disputes about what entity manages the top level domain for the Philippines, some African and Pacific states and some island territories.

However, it appears to be influenced by the view expressed by its Government Advisory Committee (GAC), chaired in 2001 by NOIE's chief executive, and unsurprisingly based on perceptions that national domains are sovereign responsibilities of each state.

     AUNIC

In May 2000 auDA sought public tenders (PDF) for management of the AUNIC database, the central registry of dot-au domain names. The database was initially maintained on a non-commercial basis by Geoff Huston, a volunteer, with infrastructure provided by Melbourne University and Telstra.

The expectation was that an enhanced registry would be established. A staged transition from AUNIC to a new registry was successfully achieved. Current arrangements are identified here.

     Names

In discussing the Domain Name System we've highlighted that apart from some basic rules, individual nations have considerable scope in how they structure their ccTLD and who/what can gain a domain and how requests for domains are handled. China for example has 37 2LDs, Norway has 33, most countries have five or six.

As domain administrator auDA inherited a suite of 2LDs and associated rules about eligibility that largely predated commercial interest in the net. Some rules were criticised as overly restrictive; others were praised as having inhibited the cybersquatting that's a feature of the dot-com gTLD that many people think of as "the web". Some of the 2LDs are moribund; there was little demand for the 'dropbear.id' 2LD, one of the more inspired examples of geek wit.

The 31 member Name Policy Advisory Panel, in line with Terms of Reference here, produced a succession of discussion papers and reports that covered

• rules for eligibility for domain names in the dot-au space (for example whether registrations are restricted to corporate entities with a physical presence in Australia)
• the derivation of names (final report here)
• proposals for additional 2LDs (final report here)

The process reflected an evident lack of consensus across the Panel. That body's to be commended for streamlining inappropriate restrictions on eligibility and derivation but unfortunately seems to have been captured by enthusiasts for "conceptual diversity" in spawning new 2LDs rather than following the example of Canada, Belgium and other countries that have simplified their space.

     competition

Overall, competition in the provision of domain-related services does not grab the attention of most Australians. Among the digerati, however, there has been a recognition that dot-au registrations are significantly more expensive than overseas counterparts and that the introduction of competition - particularly for the 'com.au' 2LD, where MelbourneIT had monopoly - might significantly lower costs while increasing service quality.

The 32 member Competition Policy Advisory Panel, in line with Terms of Reference here, produced successive discussion papers and reports. Its Final Report is here.

The Panel's recommendations were intertwined with those of the Name Panel but broadly called for competition in the provision of registry and registrar services, conceivably including separate registries and registrars for each 2LD. The recommendations were endorsed in July and implemented later in the year

     disputes

As a spin-off from the two Panels auDA established a smaller Dispute Resolution Working Group, which like the Panels published proposals and reports. Its final report, here, was one of the more impressive auDA documents.

The Group recommended establishment of a dot-au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) and Rules, modelled on ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The recommendation reflected recognition that it is not appropriate for Australia to develop an idiosyncratic scheme for handling disagreements over ownership of domain names.

It is expected that policies will be developed to cover disagreements between registrars, registries and third parties such as auDA (the latter will set and maintain policy but will not deliver services).

A more detailed examination of dispute resolution arrangements and rulings is found in a later page of this profile.

Features of the new regime are highlighted on the following page.

     future directions

In May 2003 auDA released auDA: Moving Forward (PDF), a document that reflected a review of the organisation's activities and a vision of its future role and challenges.

The document notes that

It is clear from a review of the principal purposes that in many cases auDA has moved from a development role to a managing role; it will necessarily play a significant maintenance role in the future across all its principal purposes. However, there is one area which requires further attention and focus over the next three years: that of promoting the operational stability of the domain name system in Australia.

It also notes potential concerns about relations with government (especially at the state/territory level) and that it

recognises that there are a range of groups within the community: major business customers, small business customers, and non registrants. Most of auDA's work has been with the business community because of the predominance of the .com.au domain name. If the .id.au name becomes more popular, and many more individual customers take up domain name registration, it is reasonable to assume that there will be significantly more questions about the system and the possibility of increased complaints. If these complaints are not handled well, then there will be pressure on all levels of Government to change the system. This clearly highlights the need for clear concise information about the domain name system and those who are involved in the domain name industry.

auDA will also need to grapple with the potential community expectation that it can be involved in problems with the GTLD space

A particular challenge is likely to be dealings with registrars and resellers.

Another is responding to new technologies such as ENUM.

A third is dealing with government, particularly those regulatory agencies such as the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) whose somewhat negative stance reflects lack of understanding of domain name regulation and lack of sympathy with intellectual property, in contrast to the telecommunications sector where there is considerable inhouse expertise.




   next page  (the new regime)