> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> At 18:50 18/11/96, Luke Carruthers wrote:
> 
> >> I think more than one agency should have been delegated at the one time.
> >
> >The decision was taken to do things one step at a time for expediency -
> 
> 
> Will there be someone competing with MelbourneIT by the time the deadline
> for existing domain name renewals rolls around?
> 
> If this is not the case, I suggest that the new agency will be getting the
> short end of the stick, as MelbourneIT will have already gobbled up the
> X,000 existing domain names, leaving the new agency with only new
> registrations to make money from. Giving any new agencies the chance at a
> share of the existing client base seems fair.
> 
> Perhaps MelbourneIT's requirement that all existing domain names be
> registered by 1 February 1997 was simply a gambit to attempt to grab a
> massive share of the market before there was any competition.
> 

A very good point. 

> Perhaps existing domains should remain in limbo until there is some
> established competition?
>

I think new applications should proceed, but based on the established
practices and prices of InterNIC, whilst multiple DNA's are established, at
which point the existing domains can select which DNA they wanted to go
with, based on price and level of service etc. This will lead to proper
competition and a fairer market.

Antony.
Healey Communications.

>  ...Richard.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
> Comment: Public Key: <http://interdomain.net.au/~rha/pgpkey.txt>
> 
> iQCVAwUBMpAhcTXPU7enfNnZAQHUCAP/ekZvCiqvRl7nBoETYNZatELgPuSqP98m
> W/vq7KPjhrKbL0uSCiOa2SeYYcwY/F+i1qg9/zoh05zSwcG8WhFelxUGVjtOpJOY
> kATDvJUF4Bc9ushYI5BwzVq7VbBfXeyO2HM4juCocGgjbOoYF0txsabXd1S+iRCN
> ODXL2ttvXOw=
> =RhA2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>