The Internet Commerce Association strongly objects to the auDA Board’s decision to approve in principle a Panel recommendation that, if implemented, would take away the right of Australian registrants, whether businesses, community organizations or domain name investors, to hold com.au and net.au domain names on the basis of the goods, services, events, activities or premises connected with them, rather than a registered name.
For more than 25 years, that has been the broadest pathway for registering a descriptive or generic .au domain name. Under the proposed change, it would disappear. A registrant would instead need to qualify through one of the remaining name-based pathways, such as a company or business name, related entity, partnership or trust, or an Australian trademark. For many, that would mean new registrations, new fees and a new way to lose a domain name through a missed renewal. For some, it could mean no pathway at all.
This is a serious mistake, made on a divided recommendation and a thin evidentiary record on harm, cost and transition, and it will hurt the very people the .au namespace exists to serve.
The ICA made a detailed submission to the Panel. We said that deleting the rule makes no sense alongside its own first recommendation, which keeps domain name monetisation lawful. You cannot keep monetisation lawful while removing the main pathway on which many monetized registrations rely.
We pointed out that auDA Management rejected materially similar restrictions in 2019 after hearing from the ICA. It found no evidence that domain name investment was harming the .au namespace or causing scarcity, kept the goods and services pathway, and confirmed that a compliant com.au or net.au license could be used for monetisation or investment.
We warned that the rule is not a special allowance for investors but the general pathway relied on by ordinary businesses. And we noted that the Panel had produced no cogent evidence of harm, no costing and no plan for existing registrants. The Final Report cures none of those defects.
The Panel itself was split. This was the only recommendation not reached by consensus. Four of seven members voted for deletion, two voted to keep the current rule and one abstained, later expressing support for the minority. The minority included Erhan Karabardak, an Australian trademark and domain name lawyer and former Chair of auDA. It found no cogent evidence of harm, no assessment of cost and no answer for existing registrants. It also found the result out of step with New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Singapore and other OECD countries. auDA’s own policy process required the Board to satisfy itself that the recommendation delivered the greatest net benefit before accepting it, and allowed the Board to ask the Panel for more information first. Nothing in the published record shows that it did either.
Mr. Karabardak gives illustrative examples of who will feel this most. A bakery at applepies.com.au. A Sydney mortgage broker at mortgagebrokersydney.com.au. A school running its annual fete. A football club whose domain name is its home ground. And the many Australian domain name investors and monetisation businesses, employers among them, whose portfolios were built in compliance with the rules. He cites industry estimates that up to one million domain names are affected and that, at the $47 annual business name fee, the added cost to Australians could exceed $47 million a year. David Warmuz, CEO of Trillion.com and Drop.com.au, advises that registrar audits indicate the number could be as high as 2.5 million of the roughly 3.47 million com.au and net.au domain names. Each of those registrants would need a new business name, a new trademark or a correction to their registration to add an existing business name. He calls it the worst policy change auDA has ever made. We agree.
Existing registrants have been told nothing about what happens to them. The ICA asked auDA in July to have registrars notify every registrant directly before any change affecting existing licenses was adopted. Nothing in the published record shows that registrants were ever notified, as a class, that their licenses were at stake, or that any such notice was given before the Board acted. We repeat the request.
The rules have not changed yet. auDA will publish draft rules for public consultation. The ICA will take part, and our position is simple. The deletion should not proceed. The concerns behind it can be met by enforcing the rules that already exist. If auDA goes ahead regardless, the change must apply only to new registrations. Every existing compliant registration must be protected permanently, including the right to renew, manage and lawfully transfer it. A grandfathering rule that allows renewal but blocks transfer is no protection at all.
The ICA has stood with .au registrants since 2019. We will continue to assist Australian registrants, small businesses, community groups and industry participants in this unfortunate challenge to their registration rights. Registrants who want to share how the change affects them, or who want to join our efforts, can reach the ICA’s General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch, at Zak@Internetcommerce.com. auDA’s announcement and the Panel’s Final Report are available here.