technology lawyer

Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

From 24 March 2022, any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name).  Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au Licensing Rules (Licensing Rules).

Why are Direct Names being introduced?

The .au Direct Name innovation is being introduced as a result of public consultation conducted in Australia from 2015, during which the majority of more than 97,000 people who participated were in favour of the introduction of simple, memorable, and distinctly local domain names.  These domains will provide the opportunity for users to register online names that are easier to remember, are shorter and offer a wider choice of available domain names in Australia.

The new licensing rules for .au domain names

Businesses that can demonstrate a connection to Australia will be able to purchase Direct Names from 24 March 2022.  Previously, registration of a “.com.au” domain name required businesses to have an Australian Business Number (ABN) and registration of “.org.au” addresses were available for charities or not-for-profit organisations only.  The new licensing rule changes the requirements for registration of Direct Names, meaning any business with a verified connection to Australia is able to get a shorter and simpler Australian domain name.[1]  A verified connection to Australia is defined in the Licensing Rules as a business with an Australian presence, for example:

  • a company registered in Australia under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth);
  • a Registrable Body which has an Australian Registered Body Number (ARBN); or
  • an Australian Incorporated Association, an entity issued with an ABN, a Registered Organisation or an Indigenous Corporation.

For the full list of connections qualifying as Australian presence, please refer to the Licensing Rules.

If a business holds a domain name containing the .au namespace in any format, an application for Priority Status is available for registration of its exact match for six (6) months after launch commencing on 24 March 2022 (Priority Allocation period).[2]  If you are unsure whether your business’ current domain name is eligible for Priority Status, you may check this in the auDA Priority Status Tool.[3]  Prior to launch, all Direct Names that correspond with existing domain names in the .au registry will automatically be placed on hold until the end of the Priority Allocation period on 20 September 2022.

What is Priority Status?

A registrant of existing domain names in Australia can apply for priority to register their Direct Name.  Usually, the registrant will be allocated the Direct Name shortly after applying for it.

However, there may be circumstances where there will be more than one (1) person applying for the same Direct Name – different registrants holding the same name in different namespaces (Contested Name).  For example, Party A is the registrant of “example.com.au” while Party B is the registrant of “example.net.au”: both parties will be eligible to apply for “example.au”, and the Direct Name will be allocated pursuant to priority categories determined by the existing domain name license creation date and the priority cut-off date of 4 February 2018.  The priority category is based on the creation date of the domain name submitted for application:

  • Priority Category 1: Names created on or before the cut-off date of 4 February 2018
  • Priority Category 2: Names created after the cut-off date of 4 February 2018

Category 1 applicants will have priority over Category 2 applicants.  If there are multiple Category 1 applicants, the Direct Name will be allocated on agreement/negotiation between Category 1 applicants.  Negotiation will occur directly between the applicants and applicants may contact each other through the publicly available registrant contact information found in WHOIS.  If an agreement is reached, the agreed applicant(s) will withdraw their applications and the Direct Name will be allocated to the registrant with the only active Priority Status application remaining for an initial one-year license term.  If no agreement is reached, the Direct Name remains on hold until there is only one (1) active application remaining.  Applications will need to be renewed on a yearly basis.

If there are only Category 2 applicants, the Direct Name will be allocated to the applicant whose domain was created earlier.

If no applications are received by the end of the Priority Allocation period, then the Direct Name will become available to the public on a first-come-first-serve basis.

How can businesses register for a Direct Name?

An application for Priority Status requires the business to be eligible to hold the existing domain name licenses under the .au Licensing Rules.

From 24 March 2022 to 20 September 2022, businesses can apply for Priority Status via their domain registrar, or any other accredited registrar that offers Direct Names.  The fee for lodging an application will very between registrars.

Businesses will be required to have a priority token, which can be retrieved via auDA’s website.

Businesses will not be able to update the registrant information associated with its existing domain name while the application for the Direct Name is active.  All information lodged must be up to date.

What are closed namespaces?

Closed .au namespaces are those which are only available to entities within a defined sector.  This includes:

  • au for educational institutions registered at federal or state level;
  • au for Commonwealth, state, territory, and local government bodies; and
  • au for the sole use of the Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Takeaways

If you have an existing domain name for your business, you may consider applying to register a Direct Name for a shorter, more memorable domain name.  However, as long as you keep your registration up to date your existing domain name will continue to operate even if you choose not to apply.

Links and further references

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Further information about domain name registration and disputes

If you need advice on .au domain name registration or a domain name dispute, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/au-domain-names/au-direct

[2] https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/au-domain-names/au-direct

[3] https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/au-domain-names/au-direct


Related insights about domain name registration and disputes

  • Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    The Australian Labor party has introduced an exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 (Digital Duty of Care Bill/Draft Bill) for “consultation”.  The Digital Duty of Care Bill proposes to make a number of minor (and major) amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (Online Safety Act) and adds…

    Read more …

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1]  Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…

    Read more …

  • Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…

    Read more …

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend