George wrote:
>I find the continual reference to "the industry" very depressing.
>The internet is not "an industry" although there are those who seek
>to make it so. The internet is a NETWORK. Some parts are sold, some
>parts are run not for profit, some parts are research. This is not
>a meaningless distinction, because it lies at the heart of the
>issue I have with commercialization of all levels of activity
>relating to the network. I do not believe commercial imperatives
>should dictate policy at this level, and I do not believe continual
>reference to "the industry" is appropriate in discussing matters of
>public policy.

George, I agree with your comment that the Internet is not an
industry, but rather the sum of a number of parts.  The parts that
are there to make money, could perhaps be defined as an Industry.

If the Internet is the sum of a number of parts, then effective
Domain Name administration is still necessary for that sum to work.
Perhaps some dialog on who/what the parts are that have an interest
in the sum might add value to the discussion.  It seems to me that
at least three of the parts that need to be represented include:

*The individual users of the internet - represented by ISOC-AU?
*The access points who provide the service through which those
individuals actually reach the net - represented by INTIAA?
*The organisations who use domain names as part of their
organisations' activities - represented for the .com.au sub-domain
by Tradegate ECA?

Perhaps others could nominate which other 'parts' of the internet
sum not covered by the definitions above also have an interest.
Once we have established which parts have an interest in effective
domain name administration, then its simpler to agree on a structure
that enables all groups to be represented in a solution.

Personally, I think the proposed structure of having a non-profit
organisation with its voting membership drawn from non-profit
organisations representing various interests associated with the
internet is an effective solution.

On a slightly separate issue, George wrote:

>If the intent is to permit new domains along non-commercial lines
>to be created and maintained, then the document needs more explicit
>mention of the criteria which relate to non-profit domains. In
>particular the conditions of levy will simply not be appropriate,
>nor might the requirement for financial bond posting and other
>controls. If anything, there should be an explicit requirement for
>public-interest domains to be funded in infrastructure terms from
>the levy on more commercial domains such as com.au.

What you are suggesting is that all the costs associated with domain
name administration for sub domains including those used by
educational institutions, charities, other non-profit organisations,
etc, be funded entirely and in perpetuity by those profit-making
organisations who are using the .com.au sub-domain, (including of
course things like .corp.au or whatever else might exist in the
future for us commercial users).

As a representative of a commercial organisation, I must say that

































































don't have any real problems with your suggestion.  I think a
structure that enabled the non-commercial sub-domains to remain free
of charge, with the overall admin costs collected from commercial
organisations such as mine, is a solution worth trying to achieve.
But if people want us commercial net users to support a proposal
that we pay all the bills for everyone, then its reasonable that we
have direct representation in the process.  Also, based on the
figues posted by PG a day or so ago (2,500 - 3,000 new commercial
.com.au entries per month I think?) its clear that we for-profit
organisations are a major part of the issue.

Regards, Mark


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 03/21/97  12:10:50    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *