The explosion of web sites has sparked a bunfight over the right to domain names. Angus Kidman unravels some of the dotcomplications.

Published in The Bulletin, July 3, 2001

When a global arbitration panel decided last year that Telstra had a stronger right to the domain name telstra.org than a company called Nuclear Marshmallows, which gave its address as "PO Box 666, Gosford", there were few complaints. But just who should be entitled to a domain name such as sydney.com.au or darwin.com.au?

The body charged with making that decision, the .au Domain Administration (auDA), has yet to make a final decision on the issue, despite making rapid progress on other technical problems associated with domains. Later this month, its board is expected to approve a number of policy changes designed to increase competition and service for domain names ending in .au. A new policy for geographic names may also emerge at that time but the problem isn't that straightforward to solve.

Under a long-running policy, any generic category name found within the Yellow Pages (such as "plumbers") and names of cities and other geographic entities could not be registered as a .com.au name. In the early years of the web, however, the policy was applied inconsistently, allowing internet travel provider travel.com.au, for instance, to acquire its namesake domain in 1993.

Even more controversially, sydney.com.au was registered by Victorian Rod Ashcroft (via the company name Sydney Online Pty Ltd) that same year. The sydney.com.au site contains tourist information about the city but many net watchers argue the site should at the very least have gone to a government tourism body rather than a private operator.

In May, auDA agreed to end the ban on Yellow Pages-derived "generic" domain names. That change won't take effect until later in the year, in part because of concerns over how to handle the expected rush of applicants for the newly released names once they become available. Chris Disspain, the CEO of auDA, refused to attach a timeframe to the announcement of the change.

The board also has yet to decide on any policy for geographic names, and Disspain declined to comment on whether such a change would be included in a final report due for auDA board consideration on June 30. One possibility canvassed in a recent auDA discussion paper is to introduce domains such as .state.au, to which region names could be attached (for example, perth.wa.au).

That model appeals to Ken Sharp of the Bathurst Chamber of Commerce in central-west NSW. In March, Sharp travelled to Melbourne to put the case for geographic place names at a public forum hosted by auDA. "Our key aim is to encourage auDA to come up with a uniform standard for commercial and regional sites," he said.

Sharp, who is participating in a coalition of local councils and business associations known as "One City, One Site", was particularly concerned that place names were not offered open slather. "If geographic names are opened up on a first-come, first-served basis, that could lead to problems."

In another twist on the geographic model, Jason Gibson, from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, argued that a domain exclusively for indigenous Australians should be created. "An indigenous 2LD [second-level domain] would appropriately foster the development of this unique sector and recognise the special place of indigenous languages and cultures, not only in Australia but also worldwide," Gibson wrote in a submission to auDA.

Still undecided is whether the .au space will get any new domain names, place-based or not. Two new global domains, .info and .biz, are set for introduction later this year; the latter has been co-developed by Melbourne IT, which also controls registrations within the .com.au space. Currently, auDA is finalising a report on the best way to handle the possible introduction of any new domains such as .biz.au.

Not everyone is convinced that generic names of any kind are valuable. "We've seen very minimal advantage to companies that have a generic name in the .com space," Melbourne IT's Bruce Tonkin pointed out earlier this year. In a submission to auDA, Tonkin also warned that "care should be taken not to create a hierarchy that is too deep, and hence unpopular with users – for example, street.suburb.council.capitalcity.state.au".

For Sharp, whatever solution is found, it's important that overtly commercial considerations shouldn't override community interest. Geographic names should be "used for community good, and not for profiting by any individual or company", he said.