The Freedom of Exclusion: Australian ccTLD policy. (2002)

1

This is an old essay but there is enough historically relevant information and analysis here for it to be of some value. Some of it is indeed cringeworthy as it was written in 2002 – The issues raised are however very relevant to to contemporary arguments surrounding internet governance – particular the emphasis of current policy developments on the legislation of ‘content’ over ‘communication’. I’ll make that updated argument in another post sometime.

Extract:

2

For Australian policy makers, the only way to ensure what they describe, but do not clearly define, as ‘fair usage’ in ‘good faith’, is to delimit the potentialities of the .au domain by rendering it a purely representational space (representing existing legal entities). Under current policy the ccTLD domain space is not figured as public sphere for communications or for the development of online communities but as a medium that represents ‘real world’ entities with ‘integrity’ and ‘trust’. A siege mentality appears evident in the AUDA policy documents: the .au domain is figured as a ‘valuable public asset’ that requires ‘stability’ and ‘predictability’ in order to ensure its ‘integrity’ and ‘trustworthiness’[31]. Problematized in this way the regulative policy becomes essentially defensive rather than productive. No consideration is given to the ‘integrity’ of the domain as navigational system, rather its seamless ‘integration’ within the legal status quo becomes the primary object of governance.

The Freedom of Exclusion: Power, Information, And Navigable Space.
The Australian Internet Domain Name System (DNS): Policy, Regulation and Management.
Mat Wall-Smith (2002 -Unpublished)

3

As Rob Kitchen and Martin Dodge point out in their book ‘Mapping Cyberspace’, the term cyberspace literally means ‘navigable space’. It is a derivative of the Greek term Kyber which means to navigate[1]. The Domain Name System (DNS) is central to our understanding of the Internet as a ‘navigable space’, as a system of delimited metaphoric ‘domains’. The very structure of the domain name renders what is essentially a data directory as an inhabitable space. The use of the symbol @ (at) clearly illustrates the spatiality of the metaphor that is at the structural heart of the DNS. Before widespread usage of the domain name system a specific file or electronic mail box was identified by ‘dialing’ a numeric IP address (23.345.467.378) much the same as one would dial a phone number. It was not until the DNS came into common usage that the Internet became a distinctly ‘cyber-spatial’ phenomenon. Rather than merely dialing up information the user moved through space to engage with a subject @ a_location. As Kitchen and Dodge explain;

4

At the beginning of the new millennium, information and communication technologies are reconfiguring space-time relations, radically restructuring the materiality and spatiality of space and the relationship between people and place. Moreover, the conceptual space they support, cyberspace, is extending social interaction through the provision of new media that are increasingly reliant on spatial metaphors to enhance their operation”[2].

5

This reliance on a spatial metaphor relates to what Miller and Rose describe as the process of making a territory of governance “thinkable through language”[3] although here it is extended beyond the discursive rationalities for policy making to act as an extension of the field of governance itself. By deploying discursive/metaphoric technologies those who administer the Internet make that territory calculable and therefore governable. The DNS is concerned with much more than enhancing our potential to navigate the Internet effectively. The spatial metaphors that we employ to navigate the networked system also shape the development of that network, they alter the ways in which we organize our data, and they configure and manipulate the subjectivities and relationships of members and groupings of the population as they move through both the networked world and the physical geographies they parallel. This paper is concerned with the way the assumptions, rationales and determinations of the .AU Domain Administration (AUDA) continue to recursively construct the national domain space, enacting specific programmes of governance through the use and manipulation of that discursive technology, the Domain Name System.

6


According to the AUDA website ‘.au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) is an Australian not-for-profit company vested with the responsibility of operating the .au domain for the benefit of all stakeholders.’ [4] AUDA membership is open to all-comers and the group members elect a board responsible for the development and implementation of policy. AUDA was founded in order that the ‘industry’ or ‘Internet stakeholders’ could self-regulate the development of Internet policy. Before addressing the AUDA policy documents specifically, it seems prudent to outline the general context in which these documents have been developed, in which they operate internationally, and the current status quo regarding the management and regulation of the .au ccTLD (country code Top Level domain). Much DNS policy development is influenced structurally and rhetorically by the circumstance of the system’s initial development in the United States of America. The system was initially administered by US government departments, principally the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). As the DNS became widely and internationally accepted in the early 90’s, and the commercial value of the domain name came to be recognized, the US government sought to divest its responsibility as the principal DNS administrator. The commercial value of the Domain Name was the rationale behind the initial privatization of DNS administration. It is this capital that provides the potential for the domain name system to be effectively ‘self regulating’ in that it allows for the development of an ‘economy of domains’ a system of exchange and administration that interpolates the DNS within the greater market system. This free-market discourse is voiced with much bravado in the initial US policy and discussion documents concerned with the move toward privatization and has echoed through much of the subsequent policy developed internationally. From this perspective it becomes clear why matters of competition and economic viability remain dominant terms in the policy documents that concern what is essentially an information management system or architecture. For a clear enunciation of the assumptive rationalities that justify this system we may turn briefly to the 1998 discussion document The Economic Structure of Internet Generic Top-Level Domain Name Registries Analysis and Recommendation[5] which formed the basis for the privatization of the DNS in the US. This document lists a set of working assumptions, the first of which is “In Principal, Private, Competitive, For-Profit Structures are Best”[6]. The free-market discourse evident in early US DNS policy appears to reiterate throughout the various national policy documents concerned with administration of the DNS at the country code Top Level Domain level.

7

This private, for profit, political program, provided an example by which the Australian administrators have modeled their approach to the administration of the .au country code Top Level Domain. Evidence of this can be found in any number of AUDA policy clauses, explicitly when describing one of the stated attributes of the domain name system as ‘competitive’[7], and implicitly in the emphasis of concern that various policy documents place on value, integrity, and e-commerce[8]. The private ‘for profit’ structure of the US administration of gTLDs is also replicated with an ‘independent’ industry body (AUDA) responsible for the development of policy which in turn mediates the rights and relationships between the many and varied parties involved in the domain registration industry. The continual reference to ‘stakeholders’ within the AUDA policy documents, a term left largely undefined, appears to preference those groups who have a vested commercial or institutional interest in the management and construction of the national domain space. Although they never appear in direct opposition the term ‘user’ is invoked to represent the general public, while the term ‘stakeholder’ is used to describe those with a vested interest, economic or otherwise, in the development of policy for Australia’s ccTLD. This is a very different discourse to that expressed in broadcasting discussion and policy documents which clearly preference inclusive terms and a specific focus on balancing industry needs with concerns of public utility[9]. In Australian DNS policy the public is continually configured as the consumer while businesses and institutions are clearly preferenced as ‘trustworthy’[10] producers and ‘stakeholders’[11]. It is clear that in Australian DNS policy the user is not considered a primary ‘stakeholder’ and their interests in the DNS as a navigable space are not of principle concern. This opposition is restated in the Review of Policies in .AU Second Level Domains[12], where a close reading of section 1.2 shows a series of consecutive terms that continually juxtapose the economic and the social with the economic in the primary and positive position. In that section the DNS is a ‘valuable asset’ before it is a ‘piece of national information infrastructure’ which is ‘stable’ and ‘predictable’ facilitating the steady adoption of rate of ‘electronic commerce and Internet usage’[13]. With a continued analysis of the policy documents in question, both the aforementioned Review of Policies in .AU Second Level Domains[14] and the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains[15] it becomes clear that this series of consecutive terms is illustrative of the way ccTLD policy has shaped our national domain space. The passage illustrates a preference for a specific form of development and a specific form of usage. These terms represent a complex interplay of political rationalities through which the DNS is ‘made thinkable through language’[16] as a system where the value of domains as an economic asset is stabilized in order to promote commercial usage (the first and positive term in each consecutive pair) while the population is disciplined and constructed as the predictable consumer or user of information (the second term in each consecutive pair). While it would be remiss to base any assessment of ccTLD DNS policy on this section of policy alone, an examination of the ways in which policy has been specifically deployed appears to ratify this analysis.

8

There are two principle differences in the way Australia’s ccTLD (.com.au etc.) is regulated in contrast with the regulation of the so-called international gTLDs ( generic Top Level Domains , .com etc.). The first is that the .au Domain administration strictly regulates the particular groupings of the population that may register in specific domains. The second is that the domain name registered must directly correspond to the name of the registrant. Companies, Organizations and Associations may also register domain names associated with projects that they are involved with. Individual users can only register domains in the new .id.au 2LD (second level domain, .com.au etc.) and may only register names that directly correspond to their actual name[17]. As previously discussed the DNS is primarily an information system that allow users to find a particular site using a simple mnemonic device. It is also important to recognize, however, that this is a system of registration and surveillance that also ensures the author of a particular site (or at least those responsible for hosting it) can both be held responsible, and recognized, for its content. Before the DNS was established governing the Internet was implausibly difficult because the anonymity, with which people could publish information, meant that there was no point of congruence with the legal realities of the physical world. In Foucauldian terms the ‘author function’ was removed from the Internet text and with it went a tradition of intellectual capital based on recognition and responsibility[18] . With the rise of the DNS a direct and voluntary link was restored to the ‘author’ or user of the Internet site/address. This is the point at which the Internet enters the ‘social order of property’ as the domain name – a singular identifier- capable of conferring both recognition (as a mnemonic device) and responsibility (via the need to register in order to be recognized) becomes not only required but desired. With the implementation of this system the user/registrant voluntarily enters the field of governance and the specific relations of power to which he must be subjected in order to be governed effectively. This brings our analysis to the point at which international policy departs from the administration of the Australian national domain space. From this point of understanding as to how the gTLDs (generic top level domains) render the Internet a field of governance it is possible to assess from a critical perspective how Australian policy makers choose to regulate the ccTLD DNS.

9

In Discipline and Punish Foucault writes, “That is why discipline fixes; it arrests or regulates movements; it clears up confusion; it dissipates compact groupings of individuals wandering around the country in unpredictable ways; it establishes calculated distributions.”[19] The regulation of the Australian ccTLD can be seen to operate in each of these ways. Digital networks tend to mock the borders upon which the exercise of international law depends. While we can easily locate the computer serving a particular file via its IP Address the ability to redirect domains freely, duplicate servers between jurisdictions, access and publish via proxies and encrypted routing, the general ‘agility’ of digital media and technology mean that I not bound, in my movements within internet space, to a specific locale or geography- to a specific territory of governance. Despite recent arguments professing the lack of privacy afforded by the architecture of the internet and the threat/potential for unprecedented surveillance this remains a fundamental truth. Territorial laws and social imperatives that guide and limit my possible movements and relations of power in the physical world do not bind me to the same degree that they do in info-space. In his essay on Governmentality Foucault writes of the way the definition of a ‘territory of governance’ is essential in affirming “the link that binds him (in this case Machiavelli’s Prince but in our case that collective whose responsibility it is to govern the domain space) to his territory and his subjects”[20]. Digital technologies throw the balance of the relations of power within the state into disarray and disorder. Nationally based intellectual property laws regarding trademarks and copyright become difficult to uphold simply because information can be exchanged with such ease with complete disregard for passport controls, fences, or oceans – those physical boundaries that once demarcated clear territories of governance. In digital info-space the relations of power that bind the subject to the nation state are rendered, at least in some small and partial way, obsolete. The links that bind the government, the public, and the territory of governance are eroded so that the existing status quo is threatened and the stability and relations that were mediated through pre-digital technologies become unstable and unreliable. The introduction of these new technologies presents a challenge to policy makers who are required to interpolate them in accordance with the existing system of power relations on which the stability of their governance depends. By extrapolating the citation at the beginning of this paragraph we can illustrate how our domain name administrators have worked through the development of policy and the deployment and manipulation of the DNS as a technology of governance to enact the programmes mentioned. The development of policy functions to: ‘arrest or regulate’ the movement that digital technologies enable; clear up confusion in the form of any incongruence between the new medium and the old order; ‘dissipate compact groupings of people wandering around…in unpredictable ways’ by defining and regulating their potential movements and the modes of usage allowed by specific groups of users; re-establish calculated distributions both of information and population not only by regulating their position and possible movements, but by ensuring their possible movements are calculated and accounted for in congruence with the system of calculations that defined the pre-existing (pre-digital) relations of power.

10

Current ccTLD policy as stated in the policy document ‘Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains’ determines the structural form the ccTLD takes. Under the Top Level Domain a series of Second Level Domains (2LDs) have been created which are designed to reflect specific domains of usage. The .com.au and the .net.au 2LDs are reserved for registration by companies registered to trade in Australia (note that they need not be Australian companies). The .org.au is reserved for registered charities and non-profit organizations. The .asn.au domain is for reserved for incorporated associations, political parties, trade unions or sporting and special interest clubs. The. id.au domain is a new domain for individual Australian citizens. Unlike the ‘international’ gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) which these national domains compete with (.com, .org, .net) it is only possible to register a ccTLD in a 2LD that you are eligible for and the domain name registered must ‘exactly match’, ‘be and acronym or abbreviation of that match’ or ‘be otherwise closely and substantially connected to’ the registrant[21]. These policies create a very different domain space than that which exists outside of the national domain. In the gTLD space (generic Top Level Domain) anyone can register any name that doesn’t conflict with existing Intellectual Property laws. This ease of registration has meant that many Australian independent developers, artists, informal groupings, and online communities choose to operate outside of the .au domain space because that space offers too many restrictions for a domain that is not as popular, or as internationally recognized, as a gTLD. AUDA has recognized this problem[22] and the associated problem of people and companies registering businesses in order that they become eligible for a specific domain name. The Administrator has not, however, removed these regulations and its current strategy appears to be to create more 2LDs in order to cater for excluded groups. The .id.au domain is one example. As the current policy stands a foreign company trading in Australia (www.pepsi.com.au) has a greater right to register a .au domain name, that represents a project or product, than an Australian independent developer does to register his own project. The current DNS policy addresses the shifting boundaries of the Australia’s digital territory by staking out that territory, ‘the link that binds’ the government and the population, on the basis of specific population groupings. It stakes out the national cyber spatial territory by only allowing parties that can be effectively governed (because they are legal entities) to populate that space. Nebulous and dynamic networks of online communities, projects initiated by groups of artists, independent developers, political activists and grass roots organizations etc. are effectively excised from representation in the national domain because their ‘virtuality’ (virtual in sense that Levy describes), makes them problematic (discursively powerful) subjects in that they are difficult to interpolate within the existing relations of power. These subjects are therefore conceived as a threat to the ‘stability’[23] ,‘integrity’[24] and ‘predictability’[25] of the .’au’ network space. The political rationality suggests that allowing access only to legal entities encourages usage and domain registration in ‘good faith’[26] is based on the premise that any group without a legal investment in the domain space occupies an unpredictable and therefore ungovernable position.

11

There are a number of political rationalities that the AUDA invoke in order to justify the additional regulative policy imposed on the .au 2LDs. Terms such as integrity[27], trust[28], fair use, and good faith[29] are employed consistently throughout the Review of Policies document to justify the restriction of access to domains. The other principle rationalities invoked in order to justify the restriction of particular population groups to specific domains, and the requirement that domain names correspond to ‘legal entities’, is that these policies prevent ‘cyber squatting’ and ‘domain name hoarding’. Both these term also appear in early US policy documents as rationales for ensuring the protection of existing Intellectual Property rights. In the case of the invocation of the term ‘cyber squatting’[30], which refers to the practice of registering a domain for the purpose of reselling it or restricting another parties ability to use it, the rationale at work is one of ensuring a congruence and continuity with the relations of power that existed before the advent of the DNS – Intellectual Property rights. This is a common clause in DNS policy internationally. Australian policy makers go further than ensuring a congruence of law between the digital and ‘real world’ domains. For Australian policy makers, the only way to ensure what they describe, but do not clearly define, as ‘fair usage’ in ‘good faith’, is to delimit the potentialities of the .au domain by rendering it a purely representational space (representing existing legal entities). Under current policy the ccTLD domain space is not figured as public sphere for communications or for the development of online communities but as a medium that represents ‘real world’ entities with ‘integrity’ and ‘trust’. A siege mentality appears evident in the AUDA policy documents: the .au domain is figured as a ‘valuable public asset’ that requires ‘stability’ and ‘predictability’ in order to ensure its ‘integrity’ and ‘trustworthiness’[31]. Problematized in this way the regulative policy becomes essentially defensive rather than productive. No consideration is given to the ‘integrity’ of the domain as navigational system, rather its seamless ‘integration’ within the legal status quo becomes the primary object of governance.

12

Australian DNS policy, as stated in the document Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules, is formulated to ‘fix’[32] the disruption and incongruities, the play that a borderless digital system encourages, by locking that system and its population down into a series of defined territories and relations of power that clearly delineate between stable producers (corporate or institutional- .com.au,.net.au,.org.au) and predictable consumers (.id.au). The delimiting of the commercial domains also ensures their relative abundance as a ‘public/commercial asset’ and its effectiveness as a navigable domain where ‘consumers’ can consume in a ‘stable’ information space with guaranteed legal, institutional, and commercial ‘integrity’[33] (where integrity means legally and politically accountable). Any point of confusion, any threat of dispute or legal conflict, is eradicated by ensuring that the domain space is purely representational. The policy restricts the possibility of constructing ‘compact groupings’ with no ‘real world’ representation by not allowing the public to register any available domain. It prevents the population from ‘wandering around the country in unpredictable ways’[34] and discourages us from developing online communities and informal groupings that would be difficult to govern within the .au domain space because they lack any legal or commercial responsibility or investment in the ‘real world’ (The ETOY v e-toys case in the US provides an example[35]). Without the clear legal investment of responsibility or accountability we can not be trusted, according to the policy, to benefit from the recognition that a domain name offers. Finally, all the aforementioned strategies and programmes of governance implemented through the manipulation of the DNS as a recursive system of governance establish ‘calculated distributions’[36] of information and of populations within the domain. Those parties beyond calculation are excluded in the interests of ‘stability’ and ‘integrity’ because policy can’t predict or calculate their possible movements, or groupings.

13

In conclusion this analysis focuses on how the .au Domain Administrator has developed a national DNS policy that is much more restrictive than the policies that govern generic Top Level Domains. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to consider the extended implications of these policies and important questions still need to be asked about the implications of having a bulk of the Australian Internet community functionally registering ‘off shore’ in gTLD space. The absence of any real cultural or social assessment behind the development of the ccTLD policy means that the current system has largely developed on the basis of an assumption as to what constitutes ‘fair usage’ in ‘good faith’. I have not intended to show why the administrators have taken that particularly restrictive standpoint in structuring the ccTLD but to illustrate the ways in which the DNS is deployed in a calculated way, with the intention of configuring stable relations of power within a technological space that is generally considered to be unstable and unpredictable. The AUDA has developed a set of policies that restrict the uses of the .au domain space in order to ensure the population that inhabits it moves in calculated ways and is subjected to particular relations of power. They have justified these restrictions with a political rationale that simultaneously renders the national domain space as a valuable public asset that requires protection and a dangerous political frontier that needs to be interpolated within the legal status quo. As ‘stakeholders’ with a vested interest in the integrity and usability (a factor never once considered in the AUDA policy documents) of the .au domain space we can only hope that in inhibiting the probability that the .au domain will develop unpredictably, the current policy does not also inhibit the possibility of innovation within that space.

The Australian Internet Domain Name System (DNS): Policy, Regulation and Management.

List of Works Consulted:

  • Alston R. Sen, Request for WIPO policy Review, Letter: June 28 2002, Internet: http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/letter2.html
  • AUDA, Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains (AUDA Policy No: 2002-07 Publication Date: 08/05/2002), www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01.
  • AUDA ,Website, http://auda.org.au , ‘What is AUDA’, accessed 2/10/02 .
  • AUDA New Names Advisory Panel, Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02.
  • AUDA New Names Advisory Panel, NEW 2LD Discussion Paper (AUDA New Names Advisory Panel – August 2002),www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01.
  • AUDA New Names Advisory Panel , Geographic 2LDs- Discussion Paper (AUDA New Names Advisory Panel – August 2002),www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01.
  • AUDA , Reserved List Policy- (Policy No: 2002-11, publication date 12/06/02) ,www.auda.org.au , accessed 23/9/01.
  • Dodge M & Kitchen R. 2001. Mapping Cyberspace, Routledge, London.
  • Foucault, M 1991, “Governmentality’ in Burchell,G. et al (eds), The Foucault Effect, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London. pp.87-104.
  • Foucault M., Sheridan A. (trans.), 1977, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of The Prison, Random House, New York.
  • Foucault M. 1969, What is an Author?,printed in Leitch V.B et.al. (ed), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, New York, Norton, 2002.
  • Generic Top Level Domain, Memorandum of Understanding, “The Economic Structure of Internet Generic Top-Level Domain Name Registries Analysis and Recommendations”, 23/7/02. Internet, http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/eco-structure-registries.htm. Accessed 3/10/02.
  • Japanese Ministry for Posts and Telecommunications, A Vision for the New Era of Domain Names in the 21st Century. Internet: http://www.yusei.go.jp/policyreports/english/group/telecommunications/domainnames/domainames 2.2 e.html. Accessed 3/10/02.
  • International Ad Hoc Committee, Recommendations for Administration and Management of gTLDs, Feb 4 1997. Internet: http://www.iahc.org/txt/draft-iahc-recommend-00.txt, accessed 2/10/02.
  • Irish .ie Domain Registry Web Site. Internet : http://www.domainregistry.ie. Accessed 3/10/02
  • Lyman J. 2001, News Factor Network: UN Call for International Domain Name Rules, Internet: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/printer/7668, accessed 26/9/02.
  • Meilke G. 2002, Future Active : Media Activism and the Internet, Pluto Press, Sydney.
  • Rose N. & Miller P. 1992 ‘Political Power beyond the State: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology 42,1 (excerpts)(pp173-191), reprinted in MDCM3101 Media, Culture, Policy reader.
  • World Intellectual Property Organisation, First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process: Archive, Internet: http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1 , accessed 26/9/02.
  • World Intellectual Property Organisation, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues, April 30 1999, Internet: http://wipo2.wipo.int , accessed 3/10/02.
  • [1] Dodge M & Kitchen R. 2001. Mapping Cyberspace, Routledge, London, p.1
  • [2] Dodge M & Kitchen R. 2001. Mapping Cyberspace, Routledge, London, preface.
  • [3] Rose N. & Miller P. 1992 ‘Political Power beyond the State: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology 42,1 (excerpts)(pp173-191), reprinted in MDCM3101 Media, Culture, Policy reader. P.65
  • [4] AUDA Website, http://auda.org.au , ‘What is AUDA’, accessed 2/10/02
  • [5] Policy Oversight Committee, generic Top Level Domain, Memorandum of Understanding, “The Economic Structure of Internet Generic Top-Level Domain Name Registries Analysis and Recommendations”, 23/7/02. Internet, http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/eco-structure-registries.htm. Accessed 3/10/02.
  • [6] Policy Oversight Committee, generic Top Level Domain, Memorandum of Understanding, “The Economic Structure of Internet Generic Top-Level Domain Name Registries Analysis and Recommendations”, 23/7/02. Internet, http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/eco-structure-registries.htm. Accessed 3/10/02.
  • [7] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 1.2.
  • [8] Ibid.
  • [9] Productivity Commission, Report on Broadcasting. Report No.11, 3rd March 2000. WWW : http://www.pc.gov.au , accessed 20th August.
  • [10] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 1.2.
  • [11] Ibid.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Ibid
  • [14] Ibid.
  • [15] Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains (AUDA Policy No: 2002-07 Publication Date: 08/05/2002), www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01. Schedule C.
  • [16] Rose N. & Miller P. 1992 ‘Political Power beyond the State: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology 42,1 (excerpts)(pp173-191), reprinted in MDCM3101 Media, Culture, Policy reader. P.65
  • [17] Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains (AUDA Policy No: 2002-07 Publication Date: 08/05/2002), www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01. Schedule C.
  • [18] Foucault M. 1969, What is an Author?,printed in Leitch V.B et.al. (ed), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, New York, Norton, 2002, p.1628
  • [19] Foucault M., Sheridan A. (trans.), 1977, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of The Prison, Random House, New York, p. 219.
  • [20] Foucault, M 1991, “Governmentality’ in Burchell,G.(ed), The Foucault Effect, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London. p.51
  • [21] Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open Second Level Domains (AUDA Policy No: 2002-07 Publication Date: 08/05/2002), www.auda.org.au, accessed 23/9/01. Schedule C- Schedule F.
  • [22] Review of Policies in .AU second level domains section 2.1
  • [23] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 1.2.
  • [24] op.cit. p.9.
  • [25] op. cit. Section 2.1.
  • [26] op cit. p.8
  • [27] op. cit. Section 3.1.
  • [28] op. cit. Section 2.1.
  • [29] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 3.3.
  • [30] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 1.2.
  • [31] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 1.2.
  • [32] Foucault M., Sheridan A. (trans.), 1977, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of The Prison, Random House, New York, p. 219.
  • [33] AUDA Review of Policies in .AU second level domains. April 2001. Internet: http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html, accessed 2/10/02. Section 3.3
  • [34] Foucault M., Sheridan A. (trans.), 1977, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of The Prison, Random House, New York, p. 219.
  • [35] Meilke G. 2002, Future Active : Media Activism and the Internet, Pluto Press, Sydney. p.168-170
  • [36] Foucault M., Sheridan A. (trans.), 1977, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of The Prison, Random House, New York, p. 219.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*