RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

From: Ian Johnston <ian.johnston§>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:21:36 +1100
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:smithi&#167;]
> Sent: Friday, 25 March 2005 3:20 AM

> I agree with your post regarding the openness of the slather too, though
> I fear that horse had well and truly bolted when the 'new regime' was
> introduced with the 'close and substantial' loopholes, apparently out of
> the blue, despite the Name Panel's prior deliberations to the contrary.


The Names Policy Advisory Panel made the following recommendation to the
auDA Board <

"There must be a substantial and close connection between the domain name
and the domain name licence holder. ... "

The Competition Model Advisory Panel made the following recommendation to
the auDA Board <>

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

See below the notes accompanying Recommendation 2.4.  Note that
"non-objective policy" included the "substantial and close connection"

I note that Board accepted Recommendation 2.4

The independent body was not established.  I can find no public explanation
why the Board's decision was not implemented.

Ian Johnston


The Competition Model Advisory Panel made the following
comments/recommendations in its final report to the auDA Board

2.3.29 The Panel also recommends that the registry operator(s) be
responsible for performing final checks on domain name registrations to
maintain the integrity and
stability of the registry database. These checks would include checking that
the domain name does not already exist, checking the domain name against a
defined list of
reserved words (eg. objectionable words) and checking the character set of
the domain name. The Panel's view is that these checks would be automatable
and have a
negligible per domain name cost. In the case of non-objective policy rules
(see section 2.4), the registry should confirm that the independent body has
given approval (eg. via an automated check of a digital signature). The
registry should report to auDA on the numbers of domain names that fail
integrity checks submitted by each registrar to assist auDA in regulating
the performance of registrars.

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 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.
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC