4. Policy Development
2010 Names Policy Panel:
Derek Whitehead, Chair of the 2010 Names Policy Panel, provided a summary on the Final Report and Recommendations provided by the Panel. The Board passed the following resolutions:
• Motion (Proposed J Hammer, seconded G McDonald). That the Board accept recommendation 1a: That the requirement for registrants to be Australian (or registered to trade in Australia) should remain in place. Carried
• Motion (Proposed C Langdon-Orr, seconded M Drill). That the Board accept recommendation 1b: That the “special interest club” eligibility criterion for org.au and asn.au domain names be more clearly defined. Carried
• Motion (Proposed J Rowe, seconded J Hammer). That the Board accept recommendation 1c: That auDA should publish the results of its periodic policy compliance audits. Carried
• Motion (Proposed G McDonald, seconded J Hammer). That the Board accept recommendation 1e: That auDA’s position on third party rights with respect to domain name leasing or sub-licensing arrangements should be clarified and published. Carried
• Motion (Proposed C Langdon-Orr, seconded J Rowe). That the Board accept recommendation 1g: That the close and substantial connection rule for id.au be relaxed to include domain names that refer to personal hobbies and interests. Carried
• Motion (Proposed G McDonald, seconded J Hammer). That the Board accept recommendation 1h: That direct registrations under .au not be allowed at this time. Carried
• Motion (Proposed M Drill, seconded J Rowe). That the Board accept recommendation 2a: That the Reserved List Policy be retained, and updated as necessary to ensure consistency with Commonwealth legislation. Carried
• Motion (Proposed J Rowe, seconded M Drill). That the Board accept recommendation 2b: The Panel recommends that the names and abbreviations of Australian states and territories should remain on the Reserved List, but may be released on application provided that the proposed registrant is eligible to use the name under normal policy rules, and that they have received permission from the relevant state or territory government. Carried
• Motion (Proposed K Heitman, seconded J Rowe). That the board accept recommendation 3. That:
a. the Domain Monetisation Policy (2008-10) should be abolished as a separate policy;
b. Schedules C and E of the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open 2LDs (2008-05) should be amended to include domain monetisation under the close and substantial connection rule for com.au and net.au domain names (as exemplified in Attachment A to the Panel’s report);
c. the existing conditions of use on domain names registered on the basis of domain monetisation under the “close and substantial” connection rule should be retained;
d. the definition of “domain monetisation” should be replaced with a description of permissible practice, to accommodate a range of monetisation models; and
e. the Guidelines for Accredited Registrars on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs (2008-06) should be amended to include additional explanatory material regarding domain monetisation.
Carried
• Motion (Proposed M Drill, seconded J Hammer). That the board accept recommendation 4: That the Prohibition on Misspellings Policy be retained in its current form. Carried
The Board noted the following:
• Recommendation 1d: The Panel recommends that registrants should be able to license a domain name for a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 year period. auDA staff will provide further information on costs and technical complications associated with implementation.
• Recommendation 1f: The Panel recommends that, in the absence of any compelling technical or policy reason to maintain the restriction, single character domain names should be released (subject to the registrant being eligible to register the name). auDA staff will provide further information on implementation options.
• The Board noted the minority report regarding domain monetisation (at Attachment B of the Panel’s report). The Board did not agree with the alternative recommendations put forward by the authors of the minority report. In particular, the Board considered that removing clause 4.3(a) of the Policy would undermine the operation of the close and substantial connection rule, which is an integral part of the .au policy framework. In addition, the Board read the minority report as implying that the Panel was not suitably qualified to consider the issues. The Board was satisfied that the Panel was suitably qualified, and had followed proper process (including 2 rounds of public consultation), to make recommendations to the Board on domain monetisation. Accordingly, the Board did not consider it necessary to convene a different group to deal with the issue.
