Proposed .com.au and .net.au Eligibility Changes

What auDA is proposing

auDA is responsible for administering Australia's .au domain name system. In 2025-26, an independent Policy Advisory Panel reviewed the .au Licensing Rules. In August 2026, the auDA Board approved the Panel's recommendations in principle and directed auDA management to prepare an implementation plan.

Recommendation 2 is particularly important for .com.au and .net.au holders.

Under the current rules, a .com.au or .net.au domain can qualify because it is a Match or Synonym of a service the registrant provides, goods the registrant sells, an event the registrant sponsors or conducts, an activity the registrant facilitates, teaches or trains, or premises the registrant operates.

Recommendation 2 proposes removing that eligibility pathway. The remaining pathways would include a Match or Acronym of an appropriate registered name, a Match of an Australian trade mark, and certain related-body, partnership and trust name pathways.

This matters because many Australian businesses have legitimately held descriptive domain names for years based on the service, product or activity connection that Recommendation 2 proposes removing.

It is not an exact-match-only proposal

You may have seen industry communications suggesting that every affected domain will need an "exact match" ASIC business name. That is not how auDA currently describes Recommendation 2.

auDA's defined term Match is broader. A domain can be identical to one, some or all of the words or numbers in the person's Legal Name, Business Name or Australian Trade Mark, provided the words or numbers are used in the same order and no additional words or numbers are added. DNS identifiers such as .com.au are disregarded.

auDA gives the example of the registered name auDA domain names. Possible Matches include audadomainnames.com.au, auda.com.au, audadomain.com.au and audanames.com.au.

Recommendation 2 also retains the existing Acronym pathway. It does not, however, restore the broader abbreviation pathway that existed under older auDA rules.

Why existing domains may be affected

Consider this example:

Under today's rules, the domain may qualify because emergency plumbing is a service the company provides. If Recommendation 2 is implemented as proposed, providing that service would no longer, by itself, satisfy the allocation rule.

If ABC Plumbing has no registered company or business name, relevant Australian trade mark, partnership or trust name that supports emergencyplumber.com.au, it may need another basis for eligibility.

One possible solution might be registering an appropriate business name, assuming that name is available and genuinely appropriate for the business. That does not mean a new business name is automatically the right solution for everybody.

Why I believe it is worth reviewing now

auDA's current position is that existing registrants do not need to take action yet because the implementation plan, commencement date and transition arrangements have not been finalised. That is important and should not be ignored.

However, "no need to take action yet" is not the same as saying there is no value in establishing your position now.

.au domain licences operate on a First Come, First Served basis, subject to the applicant satisfying the applicable eligibility criteria. Separately, where ASIC receives competing applications for identical or nearly identical business names, the applications take priority in the order in which they are lodged.

This does not mean another person can simply register a business name today and take your existing domain away from you. It does mean that a sensible business-name option that is available today may not remain available indefinitely.

If an important domain has an obvious eligibility weakness and a genuine, appropriate business name would resolve it, there can be value in considering that option before it disappears.

A business name is not simply a workaround

I do not recommend registering artificial business names merely as a mechanism for preserving unrelated domain names.

Under the Business Names Registration Act 2011, an entity that intends to carry on a business under a name may apply to register that name. ASIC can also cancel a business name where the entity is not carrying on a business under the name and has not done so during the preceding three months, subject to the Act's exceptions and notice process.

If you genuinely operate a business, service, division or brand under the name represented by the domain, registering that business name may be entirely appropriate. If there is no genuine business activity associated with the name, the position is very different.

Registering a business name also does not create trade mark ownership or give exclusive intellectual property rights in the words themselves.

Simply having an ABN is not necessarily enough

For individuals and sole traders, entitlement to an ABN generally depends on carrying on or genuinely starting an enterprise. The Australian Business Register can review entitlement and require evidence that a business commenced or that genuine commencement activities took place.

That means an individual should not simply obtain or retain an ABN solely as a convenient way of manufacturing domain-name eligibility where no genuine enterprise exists.

I recently dealt with a situation where a long-held .com.au domain had originally been registered for a genuine business, but that business had subsequently ceased operating and the associated ABN was no longer active. Simply obtaining another ABN for the sole purpose of retaining the domain was not an appropriate solution.

This is another reason why each domain should be examined on its actual circumstances rather than applying the same answer to everyone.

How the older rules were different

Some long-term domain holders will remember that the older auDA rules allowed a domain to be an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant's name, as well as allowing a broader close and substantial connection.

Those legacy rules were much more accommodating of shortened names. auDA's old interpretation guidelines included examples such as jimturner.com.au being an abbreviation of the personal name James Turner.

The current Licensing Rules, which came into effect in April 2021 for domains registered, renewed or transferred after that date, use the more mechanical concepts of Match and Acronym instead. Recommendation 2 proposes retaining those current pathways while removing the service, goods, event, activity and premises pathway.

In other words, Recommendation 2 is not simply a return to the older abbreviation system.

What if the business has closed?

A domain may have been perfectly eligible when it was first registered, yet the underlying circumstances can change over time. A business can close, an ABN can be cancelled, an entity can change, or the service on which eligibility was originally based can disappear.

auDA's rules require registrants to satisfy the applicable eligibility and allocation requirements for the relevant licence period. The current Licensing Rules apply to names registered, renewed or transferred after 12 April 2021.

A closed business therefore needs more careful consideration than simply checking whether an old ABN or business name once existed. There may be a lawful way forward, but it should not be assumed.

What about domains held for resale?

Domain investing and monetisation are not being banned. auDA currently permits monetisation in .com.au, .net.au and .au direct where the registrant complies with the applicable Licensing Rules, and Recommendation 1 proposes continuing to allow it.

However, monetisation does not remove the need to satisfy the relevant registrant eligibility and, for .com.au and .net.au, allocation requirements.

The interaction between continued domain monetisation and Recommendation 2 is therefore an area worth watching closely as auDA develops the implementation plan and draft rules.

My own domain provided a useful example

While researching these proposed changes, I audited my own Australian domain names rather than assuming they were all fine simply because I had held them for years.

One of them is chrisbowyer.com.au. My legal first name is Christopher, while I have operated publicly and professionally for many years as Chris Bowyer.

Under the older rules, an abbreviation pathway made shortened personal names easier to accommodate. Under the current rules, I was not prepared to rely on uncertainty around Chris versus Christopher for my principal business domain.

As Chris Bowyer genuinely is a name under which I conduct business, and the business name was available, I registered Chris Bowyer with ASIC against my existing ABN. That gives chrisbowyer.com.au a straightforward Match to a registered business name under the current rules and Recommendation 2 as presently proposed.

I chose a one-year business name registration rather than three years because the final auDA rules and transition arrangements are still unknown.

That does not mean everybody should do what I did. It demonstrates why examining the actual circumstances of each domain can uncover an issue and, in some cases, a relatively simple way of reducing the risk.

The proposed rules are still being developed

The auDA Board has approved the Panel's recommendations in principle. It has not yet approved final amended Licensing Rules.

auDA is preparing an implementation plan, considering the impact on existing registrants and transition arrangements, and preparing draft rule changes and an explanatory guide. Those drafts will be published for further public consultation before the updated rules are approved.

I will update this article as further information becomes available.

Check the WHOIS record - but query anything that does not add up

The public auDA WHOIS record is an important part of an eligibility review. It can show the legal registrant, the registrant identifier such as an ABN or ACN, the registrar, the Eligibility Type and, where applicable, an Eligibility Name and Eligibility ID.

auDA describes the Eligibility Name as the registered business name, Australian trade mark or trust name that matches the domain where that name is different from the registrant's legal name. For example, a company may be the legal registrant while a registered business name held by that company provides the Match for the domain.

If a domain appears to rely on a registered business name or another eligibility basis but the expected information is not shown in WHOIS, do not assume either that the domain is ineligible or that the public record tells the whole story. Ask the registrar to confirm what eligibility information is actually recorded and, if necessary, have it corrected.

In a recent review, the legal company and ABN were correctly recorded, but the registered business name supporting the domain was not evident in the public WHOIS information. The registrar was able to confirm and update its eligibility records without changing the legal registrant. That is why I now treat WHOIS as an important check, but not always the final answer on its own.

How to review the situation yourself

If you want to investigate your own position, I would start with these questions:

1. Do you definitely want to retain the domain?
2. Who is the legal registrant?
3. Is that registrant still an eligible commercial entity?
4. What company, business, personal, partnership or trust names are associated with the registrant?
5. Does the domain satisfy auDA's current definition of a Match or Acronym of one of those names?
6. Is there a relevant Australian trade mark?
7. Does the public WHOIS record show the expected registrant and, where relevant, the business name, trade mark or other eligibility information supporting the domain?
8. If the WHOIS information does not add up, has the registrar confirmed what eligibility basis is actually recorded?
9. Is the domain currently relying solely on a product, service, event, activity or premises connection?
10. Is the business or activity associated with the domain still genuinely operating?
11. Is the domain being held primarily for resale or monetisation?
12. If a new business name appears to be a possible solution, would registering and genuinely using that name be appropriate?

The answer may be obvious in some cases. In others, historic registration rules, shortened personal names, changed business structures, cancelled ABNs, multiple domains or monetisation can make the position considerably less straightforward.

If you would like me to review your domains

I offer an affordable Domain Eligibility Review for businesses and individuals who would prefer me to investigate their circumstances and recommend a practical course of action.

I have many years of experience registering and managing Australian domain names and am also an ASIC registered agent.

You do not need to be an existing client, and the domain does not need to be registered or managed through me. I can review .com.au and .net.au domains registered with any provider.

The review can include:

• the legal domain registrant;
• ABN, ACN and entity status;
• existing registered business names;
• WHOIS and registrar eligibility records where relevant;
• current auDA eligibility;
• how the domain is being used;
• historical eligibility where relevant;
• the likely effect of Recommendation 2;
• possible business-name or other eligibility options; and
• a recommended practical course of action.

In some cases, the conclusion may simply be that no action is required. My objective is not to recommend unnecessary registrations or changes, but to establish the position properly and recommend action only where I believe it is warranted.

The information I provide is practical domain-name and business-registration guidance based on my experience and research. It is not legal advice.