[1] "The Domain Name System (DNS) is an Internet service that translates domain names into IP addresses. Because domain names are alphabetic, they're easier to remember. The Internet however, is really based on IP addresses. Every time you use a domain name, therefore, a DNS service must translate the name into the corresponding IP address. For example, the domain name www.example.com might translate to 198.105.232.4. The DNS system is, in fact, its own network. If one DNS server doesn't know how to translate a particular domain name, it asks another one, and so on, until the correct IP address is returned." http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DNS.html
[2] Whilst I have used the common 'country code' top level domain (ccTLD) throughout the text, the term 'geographic' top level domain better defines the difference between those two letter characters which are used to identify countries and those which are used to identify generic top level domains (gTLDs) such as .com, .net and .org. The term country code is not particularly accurate when some country codes are used for territories, for example, in the case of .cx for Christmas Island or when some have been re-purposed for completely commercial use, for example, in the case of .tv or when the control of a country code has been ceded, for example, in the case of .nu, to entities with no real connection to the country. The IANA website holds the definitive list of geographic top level domains at http://www.iana.org.
[3] Kleinwachter 2000: 559.
[4] Elz's contribution to Internet governance in Australia is considerable. See http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/authors/ElzRobert.htm for his technical work. Recognition of Elz by ICANN is at http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/elz.html. Some anecdotal information is at http://www.peterpoole.info/files/ping.html and more formal treatment is at http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/media/internet.ppt.
[5] .net.au was managed by connect.com (http:www.connect.com.au). The Age article at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/06/1025667076935.html highlights the transition to a competitive market place.
[6] The 2LD, managed by the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which is used to identify its national network of laboratories and other entities. http://www.csiro.au.
[7] Geoff Huston's considerable body of work can be found at http://www.potaroo.net/papers.html. Most interesting is the 1996 reference to the Internet in Australia and other work in the RFC series.
[8] http://www.auda.org.au/register/. Inactive 2LDs of historical interest include .telememo.au, otc.au and gw.au.
[9] The rules are found in full at http://www.iana.org. In addition, IANA reports on the process for the .au re-delegation are found at http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-19nov01.htm.
[10] See, for example, http://www.iana.org/reports/ and more recent reports on .ky, .pw and .tj at http://www.icann.org.
[11] The applications for accreditation as an .au registrar were assessed on a series of objective criteria such as technical capability and financial capacity. Registrars must abide by a series of contractual obligations and must comply with the mandatory Registrar's Code of Practice.
[12] The tender documentation is found at http://www.auda/prg/ai/about/news/2001102201.html. Five companies - from Australia and overseas - submitted bids to provide registry services. The AusRegistry tender and the subsequent contract to provide registry services have clearly articulated policies, rules and service quality standards. This has improved the integrity of the data in the registry, secured that data, increased technical reliability standards and, most importantly, underpins the legitimacy of the management of the .au space by .auDA.
[13] An indication of competition as of February 2003 is provided in the price comparison at http://www.whatsinaname.com.au/, with registrations from some registrars priced at around 50% of those from their competitors.
[14] NOIE's website is found at http://www.noie.gov.au. Arguments about the scarcity of domain names have served two purposes, to drive the price of domain names up and to invoke fear within the commercial community that their name may not be available, thus encouraging defensive registration strategies. Further discussion of the purported scarcity of names is found at http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/webstaf/henrikr/MaastrichtPaper.pdf.
[15] These are identified at http://www.auda.org.au/registrars.
[16] Interesting and quite emotional commentary can be found at http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/112001/0073.html. Other background material can be found at http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/112001/0031.html, http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/112001/0063.html and http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/media/internet.ppt
[17] It is worth reading the early Memorandum of Understanding between the DoC and ICANN in the context of regulatory arrangements which developed in Australia. See Section F - Supplementary Material - at the back of the document.
[18] This trend is principally evident in a great reduction in the price of domain names and the widespread acquisition of .au names by businesses, non-commercial entities and individuals.
[19] O'Donnell, 2002.
[20] Comprehensive global data on the numbers of domain names at the gTLD level, the number and ranking of registrars and the allocation of market share can be found at State of the Domain (http://www.sotd.info).
[21] The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) has official policy responsibility for the oversight of electronic addressing in Australia. The policy is given effect through bodies such as the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) and Australian Communications Authority (ACA). The Commonwealth Government's view is expressed at http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_3-4_107024,00.html.
A perspective on ccTLD re-delegation is provided by Hagen and von Arx, in their "Patriation of the .ca" article. Further work on the role of ccTLD managers and their interactions with governments is taking place within the framework of ICANN's proposed ccNSO (http://www.icann.org/general/support-orgs.htm) and within the ITU (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/cctld/index.html).
[22] The .au Domain Administration's website (www.auda.org) holds a comprehensive listing of policies, procedures, Board minutes and correspondence, regulatory codes and consumer information.
"A domain name (or web address) is a means of identifying and locating an organisation or other entity on the Internet. Domain names, like telephone numbering, are a scarce resource which need to be managed to ensure the efficient allocation of web addresses. au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) is responsible for the management and registration of domain names in Australia. The Australian Government, through the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), maintains a cooperative relationship with auDA, and has observer status on the auDA Board, however does not obstruct in auDA's function as a not-for-profit, industry self-regulatory body." More information can be found at http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/index.htm. A copy of the Minister's formal endorsement of .auDA can be found at http://www.auda.org.au/docs/Endorse_Letter_Final.html.
[23] http://www.auda.org.au/about/news/2002100102.html
[24] Figures on uptake of the Internet by Australian households and businesses (including basic connectivity, hosts per capita, frequency of online sessions and aggregate hours online) are available on the Australian Bureau of Statistics site at http://www.abs.gov.au. For international comparisons see the ITU 2001 ICT figures at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet01.pdf and the OECD 2002 Measuring The Information Economy study at http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-29-nodirectorate-no-1-35663-29,00.html.
[25] These figures are drawn from the (former) AUNIC registry and from data supplied by AusRegistry (http://www.ausregistry.com.au), concentrating on the major 'commercial' 2LDs.
[26] Zittrain, in his review of Mueller's Ruling the Root, echoes Dave Clark in referring to "rough consensus and running code" (2002: 1) by way of explanation for the manner in which, in the early days, the computing scientists ran the DNS.
[27] The .auDA website holds archived information at http://www.auda.org.au/archive/adna.
[28] MelbourneIT's Chief Technology Officer, Bruce Tonkin, provides some interesting commentary on 'volunteerism' at http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/112001/0132.html
[29] A full list of the functions of the Internet Assigned Names Authority is found at http://www.iana.org/. The most important of the IANA functions is to ensure that the country code top level domains are managed in a robust and consistent manner around the world. This includes ensuring that the country administrators conduct themselves effectively...delegations, and the tensions surrounding re-delegations are critical. Close relationship to ICANN and policy functions.
[30] The term "wizard" was popularised by Hafner and Lyon's in their 1996 book.
[31] The full range of RFCs can be found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/overview.html and includes the treatment of the distributed management to trusted individuals of portions of Internet architecture including the .au country code.
[32] It is, perhaps, interesting to note that disputes about name allocation became much more prevalent when the use of domain names moved from an easy way of resolving the limitations of a number string to considerations of intellectual property protection. Not surprisingly, the 'first in, first served' rule did not satisfy those who perceived they deserved preferential treatment in the allocation of rights to use a domain name, especially if a domain name was the same as a recognisable brand or trademark used in the off-line environment.
[33] Background is provided in the discussion of ADNA and the Dot-Au Working Group in The Road To Self-Regulation - The Australian Experience, a 2002 NOIE paper at http://inet2002.org/CD-ROM/lu65rw2n/papers/g03-a.htm, and in the auDA & the dot-au space profile at http://www.caslon.com.au/audaprofile.htm. A history of ISOC-AU features on that organisation's site at http://www.isoc-au.org.au, complemented by the discussion of 'legitimacy' in Werle & Leib's 1999 The Internet Society and its Struggle for Recognition and Influence.
[34] This is certainly the case in small Pacific Island nations and in the developing economies of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
[35] Senator Richard Alston has been the Minister for Communications since March 1996 and is the longest serving Federal Minister for Communications. He was Shadow Minister for Communications from 1989 to 1996.
[36] Reproduced by permission of the authors.
[37] Tony Staley is a former Federal Minister of Communications, former Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia and close confidante of the current Minister for Communications, Richard Alston. Some concise background is found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/1999/staley0307.htm
[38] The DNS list is open to the public with, at December 2002, about 350 subscribers. Like most on-line lists, there is a core of around 20 subscribers. Like many such lists, it is noted for the vehemence and passion with which views are expressed rather than their cogency or any reflection of a broader community view. The personal invective sometimes found on the list has been the source of some unhelpful destabilisation of the work of .auDA. It could also be argued that the "robust" character of the DNS list has dissuaded people from participating for fear that their e-mail in-boxes will be flooded with off topic raves from those with personal agendas. Recently, the list has undergone some changes and is now moderated to keep the debate on topic.
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/122000/0016.html. This reference gives a slightly different slant on 'independent', 'consensus' and 'mandate' and is a balance to more positive coverage of .auDA's operations.
[39] Bret Fausett's website (http://www.lextext.com/icann/), ICANNWatch (for example contributions by Michael Froomkin at http://www.icannwatch.org) and online intervention by ICANN At Large Director Karl Auerbach (http://www.cavebear.com) are noteworthy. Whilst these websites receive press coverage, it is hard to measure whether they have changed the way in which ICANN has developed its processes or policy procedures or how ICANN Board decisions are made.
[40] The ACCC's submission to WIPO's discussion of domain name registration neatly sets out the competition regulator's responsibility for and interest in .auDA's activities. Note however that the focus of the submission is on intellectual property protection rather than the governance of Internet architecture and resources. http://www.accc.gov.au/ecomm/access1b.htm
[41] Membership is open to Australian organisations and individuals (details at http://www.auda.org.au) with voting in staggered Board elections across three membership categories. This prevents Board capture by special interest groups. As at December 2002, .auDA had approximately 380 members - a similar number to ISOC-AU - including individuals, small businesses, consumer advocates and corporate interests. However, in compliance with the Australian Privacy Act, detailed demographics are not publicly available. Profiles of Board candidates published during elections suggest that candidates and, as importantly, those actually elected, are not restricted to major corporate interests of areas of expertise such as information technology and law.
[42] Currently the independent directors are former ICANN Board member Greg Crew (http://www.icann.org/biog/crew.htm) and Chair Tony Staley. The independent directors are paid for their work; the elected directors are not.
[43] The final version of the mandatory Code of Practice can be found at http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-26.pdf. I was Chair of the Registrar's Code of Practice Committee, the membership of which was drawn from a broad spectrum of industry and consumer organisations.
[44] The transparency of .auDA's operation (through public forums, through online publication and through encouragement of participation in its working parties) has been little remarked. It is of interest in comparison to the operation of other regulatory bodies, where participation is difficult (for example, restricted to a particular community) and where observers have access to outcomes rather than the deliberations that led to those outcomes.
[45] In contrast to ICANN it has not faced sustained criticism in legal, information technology or other publications and, overall, has secured the endorsement of bodies such as the Internet Industry Association, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission and ISOC-AU. 'Anti .auDA' groups, such as the DNS Action Group, do not appear to have a major following and proposals for an .auDA Watch site apparently did not eventuate. Like the anti-ICANN commentators, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of these groups on changing policy outcomes. In addition, the list has been discredited by the use of pseudonymous members who may have been one person, posing as several different characters. In addition, the personal invective found on the DNS List discouraged active participation from a diversity of stakeholders as, in many cases, people were unwilling to manage a large volume of off-topic email.