Yesterday, auDA members received notification that the Policy Review Panel (PRP) has been formed, and that the first meeting will be held in Melbourne in a couple of weeks time.
This is excellent news for all participants in the .au space – many of whom have been calling for policy reform / revision for a long time.
The PRP has been tasked by the auDA Board to develop an implementation policy for direct registration (transitional arrangements) and to review, simplify and consolidate the multitude of existing published policies into just three policies:
♦ Registrant Policy
♦ Registrar Policy, and
♦ Complaints Policy
Background
The Chair of the PRP is John Swinson (Partner at King & Wood Mallesons). Given his background and experience, I think this was a good choice by auDA. Here is the announcement dated 27th July concerning his appointment.
auDA then called for expressions of interest for membership of the PRP back on the 8th August, and apparently they were inundated with applications. That’s always a healthy sign.
The selection of the six member PRP was totally the Chair’s decision, and auDA had no input.
Here is part of the announcement yesterday:
Looking Forward To It
As someone who has participated in numerous auDA panels and working groups (including the 2015 Names Panel), I’m absolutely thrilled that I was selected as the “Demand Class” representative on the PRP. You can rest assured that I will well and truly do my best to represent the interests of all registrants.
It’s also great to see someone of the calibre of Brett Fenton (MelbourneIT) selected from the “Supply Class”. He’s a straight shooter, and incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to policies and practicalities. We’ve had our differences when it comes to direct registrations, but we agree on many other issues.
A panel or working group functions well when you get differing views aired and considered (including public consultations) – and then a consensus decision is arrived at.
My position on direct registrations is well known (and documented many times), however, I am a firm believer in proper prescribed processes being followed. If they are (with all pertinent details having been considered) – and I end up in the minority – then I have no complaint.
Conclusion
As was my practice when I was on the Names Panel, I respect the confidentiality of the process. Therefore I will not be blogging or commenting on the machinations and activities of the PRP (other than to inform people when public consultations are about to take place).
Ned O’Meara – 12th September 2017
Disclaimer
Peak Business Body Representative
If the Peak Business Body Representative on the Panel were a representative of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), which represents many small business chambers and industry associations <https://www.acci.asn.au/industry-association-members>, that would bring a good balance to the Panel.
In the early to mid 2000s, three associations – ACCI, SBC and SETEL – collectively represented over 300,000 small businesses.
I was a consultant to:
– ACCI, as the convenor of the Small Business Coalition (SBC);
– SBC and its Ecommerce and Telecommunications Advisory Group (ETAG), (both now defunct); and
– SETEL (Small Enterprise Telecommunication Centre Limited, now defunct), a small business consumer association, substantially funded by the Federal Government.
I managed to involve a number of influential small business association CEOs with auDA – as association members, providers of submissions to Panels and as nominees to auDA’s Board. However, they walked away from auDA after not being elected to the Board.
A great opportunity was lost by auDA to involve a national peak small business association (ACCI/SBC) representing many thousands of small businesses – notably, as end users of domain names.
Ian Johnston