From: Dave Hooper [mailto:dave§davehooper.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:48 AM

> Absolutely astounding. But not so suprising. With such broad guidelines
> it's no wonder people 'guild the lily' just a little. Why not just open
> up the .au namespace and let anyone have anything they want? I don't
> think the effect will be much different.
>
> What is a "close and substantial" connection anyway, and who judges it?
> Speaking of Judges, I reckon we might see a few of them around this
> generic frenzy before all the dust settles, there will be a few who have
> registered these names who may not be too happy just to give them up if
> their right to them is challeneged in some way bu auDA.

Dave

The issues that you and others have raised in relation to "close and
substantial" connection were foreseen by the auDA Competition Model Advisory
Panel of experts
<www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-competition-2000/membership.html>.

The Panel *recommended* that compliance checks for non-objective policy rules be
approved by *an independent body* before a domain name is submitted to the
registry (see below).  The main reasons were to ensure that fairer, more
equitable and consistent application of domain name policy rules, and to guard
against registrar-shopping by registrants to obtain ‘soft’ policy compliance
checking.

The auDA Board accepted in July 2001 that: "Registrars will perform policy
compliance checks, with non-objective policy requiring approval by an
independent body accountable to auDA."
<www.auda.org.au/about/minutes/board-200107.html>

However, somewhere along the way in the implementation of the Competition Model,
a key Panel recommendation (and auDA Board decision) was not implemented.

Ian


--
Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL)

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
advancing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers


--

From: auDA Competition Model Advisory Panel, Final Report: Competition Model for
the .au Domain Space, June 2001
<www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-competition-final.html>

Recommendation 2.4:
...
- Registrars will perform policy compliance checks, with non-objective policy
requiring approval by an independent body accountable to auDA.
...

Policy compliance checks
2.4.2 The Panel *recommends* that registrars be responsible for performing all
objective policy compliance checks, to ensure that they offer an adequate
customer service to registrants or resellers, and provide a level of quality
control. Although it is expected that most registrars will automate their policy
compliance procedures, there is no requirement that they do so. Registrars that
consistently fail to perform compliance checks correctly should risk financial
penalties and/or losing their accreditation.

2.4.3 The Panel *recommends* that compliance checks for non-objective policy
rules be approved by an independent body before a domain name is submitted to
the registry. Domain name applications requiring approval would be referred to
the independent body by the relevant registrar; the independent body would not
have direct contact with registrants. The Panel considers this mechanism
necessary in order to maintain the high integrity of the .au domain space and
help prevent undesirable practices such as cybersquatting. Furthermore, there
are significant economies and other benefits from such compliance checking being
undertaken by a single independent body. Notably, the independent body would
ensure fairer, more equitable and consistent application of domain name policy
rules. The body must be independent from the registry operator(s) and
registrars, as they both have a financial interest in accepting registrations.
The independent body must be adequately resourced to enable it to perform this
critical function. It is suggested that individual auDA staff might perform the
function, or alternatively auDA could establish an independent body comprised of
representatives from the registry and registrar sectors of the industry and a
representative from the consumer sector.

2.4.4 The Panel notes that the independent body should be subject to defined
service levels (such as a minimum 2 day turn around, with an expedited turn
around possible for a higher fee). Registrants should not experience a lower
level of service than currently available for com.au registrants, as a result of
any need for independent human scrutiny. The cost of submitting a domain name
application to the independent body would be borne by the registrar and be
recoverable from registrants. This would have cost and timing implications for
domain name registration service; however, it would protect registrars from
liability in the event of a dispute by a registrant, and would also guard
against registrar-shopping by registrants to obtain ‘soft’ policy compliance
checking. The Panel notes that if a closed 2LD chose to have only one registrar
for that domain, there would be no reason not to have that registrar carry out
all policy compliance checks, given that forum-shopping issues would not arise.