The auDA today suspended the registration of the domain stephenconroy.com.au, which was being used by those against the mandatory Internet filter which Senator Stephen Conroy has announced recently. The site has moved to http://www.stephen-conroy.com and they have posted the correspondence between auDA and the domain’s owner.

What is concerning to me is that they were only given 3 hours to respond to a request to provide evidence as to why they should be able to continue to own the domain. 3 hours. Lets look at the applicable auDA policies surrounding eligibility concerns.

The Complaints (Registrant Eligibility) Policy (2004-01) outlines the steps to take should there be any question surrounding a the eligibility to hold a domain name.

Sections 1 to 5 look at the eligibility criteria for holding a domain, and what to do when a registrant’s eligibility information (for example, ABN number, Trademark application, etc) are an issue. I would presume that this is not an issue in this case. We don’t know this, since the auDA wouldn’t say why they cancelled the domain registration. On this assumption, we then look at Section 6.

6. OTHER COMPLAINTS

6.1 This policy deals with complaints about the eligibility of a registrant, ie. whether the registrant’s identification details are current. This policy does not deal with complaints about:

a) the underlying validity of the registrant’s eligibility (eg. whether the registrant is actually carrying on a business under their registered business name);

b) a registrar’s interpretation of the allocation criteria (ie. whether a domain name is an exact match, abbreviation, acronym or close and substantial connection); or

c) a registrant’s use of their domain name (ie. whether the domain name violates or infringes on the rights of another party, such as trade mark rights).

6.2 Complaints under paragraph 6.1a) should be taken up with the relevant government authority, such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) or the state/territory registrar of business names.

6.3 Complaints under paragraph 6.1b) are handled under auDA’s Complaints Policy (2007-03). Complaints under paragraph 6.1c) may be handled under the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) (2008-01), or alternatively the complainant should seek legal advice.

Well I presume the issue isn’t 6.1 a, since they didn’t pass this onto ASIC or another relevant authority. 6.1 b is looking at whether a registrar should have allowed the name to be registered in the first place. Since they went to the owner for answers, it must be 6.1 c. Remember, we don’t know for sure, since the auDA still haven’t told the owner what the issue is. So if we are right, the complaint is to be handled by the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) (2008-01), or by lawyers. No sign of lawyers yet, so lets look at that dispute policy. They must have followed that.

The .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) (2008-01) covers what is to happen when a dispute occurs. The basics as I understand it is that the complainant (that is the person who wants the domain taken down) must submit details of the complaint and pay a fee of between $2,000 and $4,000. Then there is this important point.

“5.1 The respondent will receive notice of the complaint from the provider chosen by the complainant. The respondent may file a response no later than 20 days after they are notified of the complaint.

So if a complaint is received, the respondent has 20 days to respond. Not 3 hours! Also, the notice should come through the dispute resolution provider, not the auDA itself. I would presume this is to allow the auDA to remain at arm’s length from all resolution processes. Perhaps they should have done this here.

Now lets presume for a moment that all of this was done, which we know it wasn’t. Now if the outcome of the dispute resolution process is that the domain registration is to be cancelled, they must wait 10 days first.

7.2 [...]  If the Panel decides that the domain name should be transferred or cancelled, the registrar is required to wait 10 business days before implementing the decision to allow for legal proceedings to be commenced.

That’s 10 days! Not 3 hours!

Anyone for censorship? I note that the correspondence relating to this issue has come from the CEO of the auDA, Chris Disspain. Why would the CEO of Australia’s domain name administrator get involved in sorting out such an issue? Was political pressure exerted from the Minister of Communications or his ministerial staffers?

This is why we need to fight the mandatory filter. This is why we need to stop Internet censorship before it comes out of hand. With a filter, there would be no need to have a domain removed to try and get rid of political commentary the Government didn’t agree with. The site could be on the ACMA blacklist faster than you can say “Bill of Rights” and no one would be any the wiser.

This is very concerning, Australia. Very concerning.