Yes: the terminology and landuse management you describe is feudal. Domain derives from the Latin for master. The modern French domaine is from the earlier French demaine and Old French demeine, from the Latin dominicus ‘of or belonging to a lord’. ‘Dominate’ has the same etymology.
The ‘commons’ were scraps from the lord’s table which came to be enjoyed as of right by the common people.
London’s Hyde Park also began as a royal domain and was used for military displays when, after the English Civil War, it was opened to the public.

Governor Macquarie when he arrived built stone walls around the gardens to Government House and the Government Domain – and separated them from Hyde Park (which at this time was not a public park had recreational and military uses).

So, in a manner of speaking, Government House was probably the manor?

London’s Hyde Park was also used for military displays.
Etymologically, a park is an enclosed place (ie it is ‘imparked’) and I still incline to the view that if it is not fenced or walled then, though it may well be a wonderful green space, it is not a park. So fences had two roles (1) keeping some humans and animals out (2) keeping some animals in, or protecting some humans (et women and children in residential town squares).
In medieval England a common was unfenced land which belonged to the lord of the manor but on which the commoners enjoyed rights.

It was also used as a field of exercise for the troops. Two days after its dedication as Hyde Park it was the site of Australia’s first official horse race meeting held by Macquarie’s regiment! Meetings continued to occur there until the establishment of the Sydney turf club.

It was also the site of the first rugby (the Sydney club v the Australian club), cricket (between civilians and officers on the Commons and the 17 and 39th regiments in Hyde Park)and boxing meetings (a passtime of the NSW Corps).

Hyde Park was not turned into a public gardens until 1856.

Any more clues about those fences?

In the ‘let it all hang out’ 1960s there was strong support for ripping down park fences. People said ‘Why should we want to keep people out? Let them in.’ I remember going a lecture where we were shown photos of parks with railings. They were compared to prison bars. Then we were shown photos of how much better the place was without these cruel bars. But I never heard of any follow-up research to discover if removing the bars increased or decreased use of the parks. I think it decreased – because safety became an issue. In the good ‘ole days there as a Park Keeper who ensured that the park was well-tended, the plants were looked-after and the people were safe. When the fences were removed the safety was removed. Instead of there being a park keeper, mobile gangs of young men in dark green sweat shirts turned up in light green vans. They mowed the grass and they left.

Although, my comment refers to the presence of fences as a seperating device, between road and green space?

I am not aware that the issues of public commons or feudal arrangements of land ownership were ever a consideration in the NSW colony. (The Squatocracy never became established).

If a design historian came across those photos of Australia, I think he/she, would be able to guess that the people who made them were more influenced by England than by other European countries.

So some early pictures of Hyde Park Sydney:
[ http://www.hht.net.au/__data/assets/image/0011/77528/St_James_Church_Supreme_Courtand_Hyde_Park_watercolour_J._Ellis_HHT_collection.jpg ] and [ http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0017/135116/Hyde-Park-1.jpg ]

London’s residential squares were fenced in order to control their use by residents only. Many are still managed like this and although the policy seems unfriendly to the general public it makes the spaces safer for families. I would like to see much clearer distinctions between (1) private open space – gardens (2) communal open space, for a group of residents (3) public gardens – controlled but free access (4) public parks, freely open to the public but managed for specific objectives and normally fenced (5) ‘wild’ open space: unfenced, freely open to the public, uses not restricted but ‘managed’ to the extent that mountains, moorlands, deserts and beaches are managed.

There is an early image of Hyde Park in Sydney showing something of this arrangement – and it seems to be that the fenced area is turfed while the area outside the fence is a dirt road.

I am not sure if there was a general change in the design of these public open spaces when the roads were paved or if the roads and promenades surrounding Leicester Square were paved?