>_From: Robert Elz
> 
>     Date:        Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:40:12 +1100 (EST)
>     From:        Deus Ex Machina <vicc&#167;cia.com.au>
>     Message-ID:  <199802231340.AAA20292&#167;cia.com.au>
> 
>   | neither do I think implementing any new domains under .au prior to
>   | competition can be seen as anything but self serving
> 
> I'm not sure what the relevance is - if more sub-domains of .AU are
> created before sharing is implemented, it is unlikely it would be MelbIT
> who is running them...   After competition works is another matter.

pr.au and tm.au is just a bandaid solution to rectify a problem which
is more easily fixed by proper competition.

>   | the prefered option would be to have the .com.au zone file
> 
> How the zone file will be built, etc, is one of the issues which is
> delaying the sharing - it needs to be fair (unbiased) that's for sure,
> almost certainly automated.   The more complex question isn't worrying
> about making sure one registry's updates aren't delayed or whatever so
> as to favour another, but how to deal with cases where two registries want
> to install conflicting information about the same domain name.

I would suggest incoming details should be pending-locked for a certain
number of hours for the registry who first got the update, after which if the
registry hasnt complete the transaction it should become open again.
so two registries shouldnt be installing conflicting information.
all parties should obviously be informed during the lock-out period.

>   | nor can we have one registry enforcing its rules on another registry.
> 
> No, but I don't think that says what you believe it says.   The rules
> of a registry relate to things like payments (howm when, how much, ...)
> and perhaps some related to the form to be completed.   I suspect the rules
> that you mean are the rules of the domain, and those, absolutely without
> question, must be applied equally by all registries.   It would make no sense
> for one registry to have qualification criteria (or whatever) that another
> did not.

no. MIT cant uniformely enforce its own rules, how do you expect X
separate companies to enforce them. forcing other registries to
have the same rules defeats the purpose of competition. all it does is
open a can of worms about "conflicts" of interest. there are no good
justifications for the current rules, and competition would
correct this initial error.


> You don't believe that MelbIT really want many of the rules that exist for
> com.au do you?   They'd make far more money if they simply sold as many
> domains of any random name to anyone who asked - it does them no good at
> all to refuse requests.   The com.au rules were in place before MelbIT
> took over (though they have been slightly modified) and will remain more or
> less unchanged when there is competition.
> The rules are to protect the DNS itself, and to make sure it remains a
> relatively sane place in which to name organisations into the far future.
> Note also that the DNS provides the rough equivalent of the phone "white 
> pages".   That is, assuming you know the name (exactly) you can find the
> other information needed to make contact.   The DNS was absolutely not
> designed as a "yellow pages" type directory - it doesn't have anything like
> the right properties - ie: its intent is NOT to allow people to find things
> where they don't know exactly what they're looking for.

the rules do not protect the DNS, neither do they protect the registries.
all they do is cause conflicts beween the clients and the registries.
they force clients to bypass the silly attempts at censorship. clients
will always route around this kind of damage. its time it was put to rest.

there is nothing sane about the current system. it is fact totaly insane.
we have countless disputes between reasonable requests for domains
and some half assed pointless rules designed to protect the 
aestethtic value of the zone files.  this will come to an end.

my god do you think for one moment toyota give a stuff if you think
they shouldnt have starlet.com.au. starlet, yes its aproduct, yes
its a car, and the brn aquired for toyota starlet site isnt even used
to trade under. its not even owned by toyota, its owned by spike media
who put together the site for toyota.  your rules are censorship. censorship
is damage to the flow of information. people ill always route around it.
and just how much polution of the business name space do we have because
of the dns rules? it trully montypythonesque. kafka couldnt even dream
this one up.

neither does it matter what the DNS was designed for, what matters is
what clients want. the DNS system will quite happily deal with the load
under .com.au. and really the pretiness of the zone files is really none of
anyones business except frustrated wanabe politicians and legal eagles
paid to protect names.

it strikes me that is is easy for you to say what you think the
"rules" should be, but the fact is you are not the one explaining
to customers just how pointless the whole system is. or why
their domain was rejected when there are countless examples
of ones that "crept past the net" no doubt nothing to do with
rumoured cases of beer.

the dns has no legal name status and if you are
to insist on a correlation then you must have one to one matching.
the current system is wrong in all senses of the word. competition
will correct this. you have wasted so much of everyones time its
trully ludicrous. its slow, its painfull, its pointless.

its totally irrelavent how you think the dns should be used, nor
should you be stiffling innovative attempts at its use. if people
want to use the dns as yello, white or pink pages what business is
it of yours? the only valid reasons to prohibit names would be a
question of load.  since dns is now paid for, the money
from the sale of names should be mostly ploughed back into
bigger and better servers. so the load issue is also pretty much
irrelavent. currently the dns has become a cash cow for a single
institution. this is in the public interest?

if a client wants blue.com.au what business of yours is it to say
they should or should not have it if it is availlable? there is absolutely
no good arguments against giving people who want a domain name the name.
there are already good mechanisms in place for people to protect
legal names, the last thing we need is a bunch of techies playing
bully, judge jurry and executioner making ad hoc quasi legal decisions.
MIT has won no friends playing the silly censorship games.

domain names are mappings from names into ip addresses, and there the
matter should end. the pricing of the dns infrastructure should be set up
to cope with any load placed on it. perhaps once upon a time we wanted
to make sure that .com.au didnt get too many names, but those days
are long over. its time to move on. you are doing nothing but making
entry into the net in australia a painfull experience for businesses
and ISPs. its time to bring into existance a *usefull* dns system in
australia. one with which businesses and ISPs dont have to fight with.
one which caters for the needs of its users.  one which is prompt
timely and efficient. one that *works*.


Vic Cinc
Director Internet Industry Association
Director Ausbone 
Chairman Connect Infobahn Australia