auDA (au Domain Administration) are making a bunch of changes to the Australian domain name Licensing Rules.
You can read the Amended Licensing Rules here.
You can read their Explanatory Statement on the rule changes here.
This is our humble opinion on what we’ve found to be the most notable amendments so far:
- Page 10 – They have added that “malware, botnets, pharming, phishing and spam” means “DNS Abuse“.
- Page 20, Section 2.3.3 – They have changed the sentence that reads “A licence does not confer any proprietary interest in a domain name” to “A licence confers No Proprietary Rights In a Domain Name“.
- Page 28, Section 2.11.4 – They have added, “If a Licence is held by a Registrant as a natural person and that Registrant becomes deceased, the executor of the Registrant’s estate is responsible for the Licence as if it were the Registrant, and must, within a reasonable timeframe and having regard to the Registrant’s wishes and the executor’s obligations at law, effect a Transfer or cancel the Licence in accordance with the auDA Rules.” This appears to be a good new addition for the relatives of deceased people hopefully being given the domain name.
- Page 29, Section 2.11.17 – Added to the end of this sentence, “A Person must not use or inadvertently allow their domain name to be used to compromise the integrity, stability and security of the .au and global DNS” they have created this new sentence, “Note: an example of a prohibited use that may compromise the integrity, stability and security of the .au and global DNS is using or inadvertently allowing a Domain Name to be used for DNS Abuse.” Our opinion is that if they deem you to be sending any emails they deem as spam, they can delete your domain name, due to their new “DNS Abuse” explanation. Emails being classed as “spam” could possibly be too broad. And exactly WHO at auDA will be the single person thinking, “hmm, this looks like spam to me, so I’m going to delete this person’s domain name”.
- Page 40, Section 2.18.13 – They have added a clause that basically allows them to suppress WHOIS information “if agreed by auDA in Writing” and if that information is also suppressed on the Australian Business Register. This could be concerning if auDA Board Members personally want WHOIS information suppressed, for various unknown reasons. Does “if agreed by auDA in Writing” mean the CEO or CTO or a Board Member can literally suppress any WHOIS info he/she likes?
Let us know if you find anything concerning – news@assets.com.au
Thanks for keeping us informed. Good summary.
In some respects I think the term ‘DNS Abuse’ is misleading. My immediate interpretation would be along the lines of DoS for instance, not Malware or the like. It would seem to me the auDA have essentially copied this from ICANN and the Registries Stakeholder Group. How this will be enforced could prove interesting; if you became aware of a domain which had become unintentionally compromised, would the owner be given the opportunity to resolve the matter, or would it simply be terminated due to a violation of said policy? This is where an ombudsman would come in very handy…
Agree. auDA are still a law unto themselves. In all these policy documents, there’s a lot of “if deemed necessary by auDA” and “if agreed by auDA in writing” meaning…..
Meaning what?
Does this basically mean the auDA CEO can do whatever he/she likes at any time and claim “oh, this was deemed necessary by auDA”. Or can one of the board members put forward as a motion and then everyone just agrees?
Good point Scott. As many of us have been chanting for years, When auDA Ombudsman? (click on the auDA Ombudsman picture and link on the right of this page for more info).