From: Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2015 4:57 PM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Subject: Submission to the Names Policy 2015 30 September, 2015 Jo Lim, Chief Operations and Policy Officer, auDA Thank you for giving the public and domain registrants the opportunity to provide suggestions and comments on the upcoming decision about the shorter .au domain, and how to implement it in ways that protect the .au brand, current businesses and brands, as well as enhance the experience to Australian and international users. I personally don’t believe that shortening the .au domain offers huge benefit, as the existing second-level domain (2LD) system at current - seems to work perfectly well. Consumers trust it, and businesses almost all use it. And, in some ways, the current "domain situation" differentiates genuine Australian businesses, entities, and individuals – from the "now" smorgasbord of domain names (Top Level Domains) that have recently flooded the market. In saying that, .au could 'possibly' compete better with these international domains and TLDs, while being short, succinct, and clearly Australian (while ensuring to always keep the policy of, only Australian businesses/citizens can register in .au). The genuine issue, however – is that current holders of domains in the .au namespace, would be unfairly treated if a superior domain (i.e. the shorter .au) were to simply become 'available' and current businesses efforts, websites, domain/s, and branding - are tarnished. On top of that, consumers could easily be confused. Everyone knows, for example, about RealEstate.com.au (or NineNews.com.au), but if no clear preferences are given to the current registrant, and 'anybody' else registered this domain in the shorter .au – then consumers would easily be confused – RealEstate.com.au and RealEstate.au (or NewNews.com.au and NineNews.au) sound like the same thing, just shorter and quicker to type. Essentially the "com" or "net" part is taken - but the .au remains the same. As .com, or .com.au is always the more expensive, favoured, popular, and or most used domain extension for businesses and brands - most people would assume the shorter domain of .au would naturally be the shorter version of the .com.au. From an implementation standpoint, either the .com.au registrant, or at the very least – the registrant who was the "first in, first served" licensee, should be first in line to get the shorter version of the domain (i.e. the .au). Thus (for example) if abc.net.au was registered before abc.com.au, and the registrant of abc.net.au clearly had the pick (first in, first served) of any domain extension, but selected .net.au - then in this, rather uncommon case, the .net.au registrant of "abc" should be the first to be offered the abc.au domain. Makes sense, is fair, and maintains auDA’s policy of "first in, first served". Like many business owners and brand owners who have built and spent capital on online enterprises, branding, presence, and intellectual property - the shorter .au should not strip away their business, just because .au wasn’t the option auDA (or its predecessor) released right from the beginning. Domain investors, licensees, brands, and businesses should not be penalized for auDA ultimately changing their mind many years down the track. I would highlight to auDA, the Panel, and the board members - the clear message from the Law Institute of Victoria, in their 2015 Names Policy submission, that: "The impact on the existing 2LD system and existing 2LD registrants should be the main priority in the implementation process. auDA has an obligation to its existing registrants and must ensure that that obligation is maintained." And further... "As .au direct registrations will be seen to be more valuable than existing 2LDs, there should be a priority registration period allowed exclusively for existing 2LD registrants to have first right to register the equivalent .au direct registration." If the implementation of the shorter .au can be done with total fairness, transparency, and due diligence - then .au could offer much for the AU namespace overall. When New Zealand moved to the shorter .nz - their systems and procedures with regard to current owners/registrants to upgrade or reserve the shorter name was to be admired. The protocols in place for registrants of the same name in multiple extensions (i.e. example.kiwi.nz, example.net.nz, and example.co.nz) to acquire the shorter .nz was overall excellent. However, again - I would emphasize that the "first owner" or for auDA purposes, the first "domain registrant/licensee" of a particular domain, should be the first to get preferences for the shorter .au domain - as this is completely fair. First in, first served. If the domain system/extension gets a trim down (or loses the com/net/org/etc part) then naturally - the first registrant of a particular domain, who could have registered any "extension" they wished, should be the "first" to get the right to obtain the shorter .au domain. That's completely fair and transparent, and lacks legal ramifications. I look forward to tracking what auDA does, and I’m sure the tens of thousands of businesses, including the many thousands of purely online businesses that rely on their .com.au and .net.au (commercial operations) will expect to be protected and not have their domain brands stripped from them, while being loyal .au customers and doing their part to promote the .au namespace. auDA must respect their rights, ethically, fairly, and legally - and indeed, ensure existing registrants are not negligently treated. As mentioned, if the short .au was available from the beginning, when .com.au, .net.au, .gov.au, .edu.au, .id.au, and the ‘rest’ were first opened to the public - there would be no issue today. Finally, as auDA rather slowly, a few years ago (very much behind the rest of the world) – finally allowed the 'selling' and commercialization of the .au domain space (in effect, creating the value in au domains and the buying/trading of them in the secondary marketplace) - auDA also created value in currently registered Australian domain names which can now be tarnished by releasing the shorter .au without due care and diligence, in protecting current registrants/customers and their built brands and assets using those domain names. While the shorter .au offers much potential, current registrants should not be forgotten, as they represent 3 million domain names, and a major part of the entire .au framework. With fair and reasonable implementation, .au could be a great final extension of the .au family and brand. In saying that - many registrants of .com.au or .net.au would want to acquire the shorter .au, and if the market accepted it, start using that (while keeping the .com.au or .net.au for safety) so does releasing the .au help in the first place? A truly tricky situation, where unfortunately confusion may permanently be the norm. A pity .au wasn’t released right from the beginning. One final possibility - is to simply keep .au for individuals – and completely and unequivocally for "good" – not allow .au for commercial purposes of any kind (no companies, no ABNs, no sole traders, no trusts, no partnerships etc) - making and keeping (the well trusted and well established) .com.au / .net.au for business/commerce, .gov.au for government, edu.au for education, org.au for non-profit organisations and charities, and thus - the .au only for indviduals, and non-commercial operations. This option could avoid many issues, while maintaining clarity and avoiding confusion for Australian internet users, as well as our international users abroad. Additionally, registered trademarks could also be on the 'banned' list in .au – keeping things clear, safe, transparent, and fair - while ultimately opening up the .au for the millions of Australian citizens who want (or need) an online presence that’s uniquely Australian. This can serve the needs of the current registrants, as well as help grow the .au family and namespace in a distinctive way, which again - is different and could be considered superior - to the hundreds of other global domain extensions. Regards, John Howie.