In this op-ed, Optimising founder James Richardson looks the likely impact of looming changes to Australia’s internet domain infrastructure.
I sold domain names 20 years ago at Melbourne IT back when you needed a business name that matched the domain. It was slow and it annoyed everyone. When Australia’s domain administrator (auDA) loosened the rules, Australian businesses did what you’d expect and registered the names they could build their brand around, then spent the next decade or so building those brands.
The rules we’ve all been playing by are all about to be changed and I don’t think most of the people it affects have any idea the impact this is going to have.
Most ‘.com.au’ and ‘.net.au’ domains today are registered under a provision that says you need an ABN and a “close and substantial connection” to the name. That covers the plumber who trades as J. Smith Pty Ltd but runs melbourneplumber.com.au, the retailer with a product domain for its best seller, the company that shortened its name for the web ten years ago and the business that bought a brand and let the original registration lapse.
It also covers the family trust that holds the domain for the operating company, the annual event that has its own address, and the common misspelling a business registered so its customers would still find it.
In my experience a lot of businesses chose the domain first and settled for whatever business name ASIC had left, because the domain was the thing customers would see. None of them were gaming anything.
In August, auDA’s board accepted in principle a recommendation from its policy panel to remove that provision. If it goes ahead, every .com.au you hold would need to match a registered business name or an Australian trade mark, and it would need to be an exact match.
AuDA hasn’t said how many domains that catches. Conservative industry estimates put the number somewhere between two and 2.7 million of the 3.4 million names on the register. Even if the real figure is half that, I can’t think of a rule change that has asked more of registrants at once.
Each of those domains means a new ASIC business name or a trademark application, plus a correction with the registrar, just to remain eligible. The business name is the cheap route. A trademark costs more, takes months and can be refused.
And whichever route you take, someone in the business now has to keep every domain, every business name and every trademark renewed and matched, indefinitely, and the registrars are expected to police it.
The reasoning behind all this, according to the board, is people holding large portfolios of domains they don’t trade under, and impersonation.
Does the namespace need tidying up?
Maybe. But a domain buyer with fifty descriptive domains registers fifty business names at $47 a year each and carries on. The rule doesn’t stop them, it sends a bill to every legitimate business that was doing what the old rules asked.
The process hasn’t helped. The panel wasn’t unanimous on this recommendation, the board’s approval is in principle only, and there is no implementation plan or draft wording yet.
In earlier reviews auDA emailed every registrant. This time, the people who hold the domains have mostly found out from their registrar, from LinkedIn or not at all. AuDA says draft rules and a public consultation will follow, with dates and transition arrangements “in the coming months”, which is the window in which this can still be fixed.
If you are going forward with this change, grandfather every existing registration made in good faith under the current rules and apply the new test to new registrations only, which is how most rule changes work.
Publish your own impact number before the rules are drafted. Email every registrant directly, as happened in earlier reviews, because most of them will never find a consultation page. And be straight about what “register a matching business name” is. It isn’t an integrity test. It’s a fee.
If you’re responsible for a brand, there are two things I’d do now. Audit every domain you hold against your business names and trademarks, because whoever set them up years ago probably used the connection rule without telling anyone and you may be surprised how many are exposed.
Then, make a submission when the consultation opens. There’s no effective date and no draft rules yet, so there is still time for the people this affects to be heard, and I think that’s the voice auDA most needs to hear.
I’ve spent a long time helping businesses build value into their web addresses. Making millions of them re-prove they’re allowed to keep them is a strange way to protect the namespace.
