FW: [DNS] Policy Compliance

FW: [DNS] Policy Compliance

From: Ian Johnston <ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:33:52 +1100

Regarding your comments below, one exception on retrospectively was the auDA
Board's decision relating to the .au Dispute Resolution Process (auDRP).

The Board approved the auDRP proposed by auDA’s Dispute Resolution Working
Group and it will come into effect with the introduction of competition
according to <http://www.auda.org.au/about/news/2001082001.html>,
notwithstanding Name Panel recommendation 3.8 (* see Note below).

The Board appears to have justified its decision as follows:  "The
introduction of a Dispute Resolution Procedure is an administrative change,
not a policy change.  Therefore, the ‘grandfathering’ provision in
Recommendation 3.8 does not apply to this recommendation."

However, it is unclear how existing com.au domain name licence holders can
be subjected to the auDRP on the introduction of competition, given the
existing com.au Domain Name Allocation Policy
<http://www.inww.com/policies/comaupolicy.php3#5> and existing Terms and
Conditions for a com.au Domain Name Licence

On renewal of domain name licences, holders of domain name licences may be
subject to new licence Terms and Conditions which made reference to the
auDRP.  But this may be up to 2 years for those licences renewed before the
introduction of competition.

Perhaps you (or someone) else could clarify please.


Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Limited (SETEL)
http://www.setel.com.au   mailto:ian.johnston&#167;setel.com.au

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
Advancing and representing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and electronic commerce consumers

* Name Panel recommendation 3.8:

The final report of the Name Panel included the following recommendation and
accompanying text


3.8 Retrospectivity

Changes to domain name eligibility and allocation policies do not have
retrospective effect for current domain name licence holders. The new policy
will only apply to existing domain name licences if the licence is
re-registered to a different entity, or when the existing licence holder’s
licence expires.

The Panel recognises that ‘grandfathering’ is accepted practice when
introducing policy changes.  Entities that licensed a domain name under the
existing policies will have security of tenure over that licence (provided
they continue to renew the licence as required).

The Panel notes that the intent of its recommended policy changes is to
relax the current policies, thereby allowing more domain names to be
licensed by more people. Therefore, it should not be the case that existing
domain name licence holders would ‘lose’ their licence under the new policy,
even if they were not expressly protected.

The Panel has reached this conclusion after considering the inconsistencies
created by preserving the status of some domain name licence holders under
the old policy, while requiring others to comply with the new policy.


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick&#167;quad.net.au]
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2002 2:46 AM
To: Ron Stark
Cc: [dns]
Subject: [DNS] Policy Compliance

On Friday, 25 January 2002 3:02 PM, Ron Stark wrote:
Subject: RE: [DNS] Geographical Names

> David, if there are "heaps of domains registered pre 1996 which are
> prohibited by the current com.au policy (and have been for over 5 years)"
> have to ask:  If a domain name must comply with current policy at its
> renewal, how can "heaps" of domains have gone through at least two
> iterations of renewal when they don't comply?

Hi Ron

The interpretation of the rules has always been that a domain name must
comply, and must continue to comply, with the policy in force at the time
of its initial registration.

In other words, the policy has never been retrospective.

Assuming the policy was changed in 1996, any domains which were registered
prior to that date are "grandfathered" i.e. they are allowed to be renewed
even though they do not comply with the current policy.

I hope that clarifies the particular point.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).

List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (329 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC