> FREDs Fish - is it fred.com.au, fred.biz.au, fred.store.au, fred.shop.au,....?

Then we must decide if the DNS is advertsing or is it just a nice side
effect that people can make the connection between the FQDN and a
business name.

The DNS is the closest thing we have to a global Internet register and
business is driving it as such. The clown earlier in the year who was
selling everything from quantus.net to sydney200olympics.com is proof of
the market.

I do appreciate that we could have names worse than MIB variables if we
are not carefull but one alternative is the opening of more logical
domains under the popular 2LD's.

What is wrong with qld.com.au, sa.com.au, nsw.com.au, law,com.au,
fish.com.au ? Then you could have fred.fish.com.au - Freds Fish Shop !

There is a problem - perceived or real otherwise proposals like ADNA would
not even get to this stage.

I think that local sporting clubs would go nicely under .rec.au, that
museums etc would fit under .arts.au but I have no opinion on the rest -
not heard any good/bad arguments either.

This would be one of the roles of ADNA though - to get the right groups
together to decide this type of stuff. I have no idea how much of it  
needs paying for as what it costs will be are still unknown. 

What does/did it cost to run IAHC ?
What does it cost to run the IETF ?

Do they get money from members in the form of dues or do big companies
sponsor them ?


 > 
> IN and of itself more 2ld domain names is not a clear solution.
> 
> So Why Bother?
> 
> a - to allow open competition amoung name providers
> 
>     If you cannot make xxx.au operable by a number of openly competing
>     registrars within xxx.au then a potential approach to market competition
>     is to open up "similar" SLDs which allow competition across the domains.
>   
>     I readily admit its a poor alternative to competition within the SLD but may
>     be dictated by external conditions.
> 
> b - to relieve name congestion
> 
>    Fred.com.au is already taken but FREDs fish still wants to use the name
>    fred.xxx.au
> 
>    I think this is often a poor solution as both fred.com.au and fred.xxx.au now
>    get their identity confused in the eyes of the end consumer.
> 
>    You have to weigh up these factors against the observation that the value
>    of overloading the name space with directory semantics lies in the very
>    factor of usupring name collision, and if you open up more namespace those
>    entities who see a high value in their name will occupy the new space
>    with their names as a justifiable measure to protect the integrity of the
>    name.
> 
> So the point I'm making is that automatic mimicry of the generic top level
> domain name within .au, or within any ISO3166 name space is not
> a good thing in and of itself.
> 
>    g
> 
> 
> At 02:38 PM 12/5/97 +0930, Stephen Baxter wrote:
> >> Really? Personally I find that a somewhat difficult leap of logic to parse. How do you
> >> arrive at the conclusion that the ISO 3166 spaces should mirror all generic top level
> >> domain names? What particular need would this measure address?
> >
> >If the 2LD space under .au is not be opened up further then why does ADNA
> >or any other body have to be formed. I do not really care about .de or
> >.it.
> >
> >Somebody at the last meeting said that kre had managed so far by just
> >approving next to no 2LDs for some time. If the management of .au is to
> >happen by automatic rejection then fine. What about the biz.au and acn.au
> >that been floated around - either they have been rejected or haven't even
> >been tried - I do not really know but there has to be an organisation in 
> >place to handle any new application for 2LD name space then the right
> >desicions can be made. 
> >
> >I can see a need for some of the names under the IAHC proposal.
> >I suppose we could say why do the 2LD under .au need to generally
> >following some of the present top level domains :
> >
> >.com   -  .com.au
> >.org   -  .org.au
> >.net   -  .net.au
> >.edu   -  .edu.au
> >.gov   -  .gov.au
> >
> >I think that people expect it to follow as it has in the past.
> >
> >Thats why !
> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >>   Geoff
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Then I see a real need for ADNA as the applications to become DNAs roll
> >> >in.
> >> >
> >> >> Perhaps you would care to further elaborate on why you percieve such a connection
> >> >> to exist.
> >> >> 
> >> >> thanks,
> >> >> 
> >> >>   Geoff
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> At 10:09 PM 11/5/97 +0000, Stewart Carter wrote:
> >> >> >Geoff,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't agree that the ADNA concept is 'broken' simply because there are 
> >> >> >different types of DNA's, only some of which should contribute funds to the 
> >> >> >operations/management of this very necessary supervisory/regulatory body.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Aside from the question of how to keep Melbourne IT honest, there is the need 
> >> >> >to implement new developments such as your own IAHC's recommendations viz 
> >> >> >.firm,.rec,.store,..web etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >BTW, when/where is the next meeting of the Domain Names Forum.
> 
> 


Stephen Baxter                            SE Network Access
SE Network Access                         http://www.senet.com.au
Direct Internet Access                    222 Grote Street
phone : +61 8 8221 5221                   Adelaide 5000
fax   : +61 8 8221 5220

<http://www.senet.com.au/~steve/pgp.html for Public Key>