Re: DNS: Issues relating to

Re: DNS: Issues relating to

From: <vicc§>
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:31:31 +1000 (EST)
>_From: Kim Davies
> Quoting vicc&#167;
> | 
> | this is another example of  the people in dns not listening to its end users.
> | take rejected by robert for not having a brn/acn, I am sure they
> | would be frilled by the prospect of having
> Perhaps you could elaborate on what "fila" is?

fila is a large company, which spends millions on advertising within australia,
sells millions $ worth of goods, but does not have an acn or brn nor any other
magic australian number. they sell running shoes, watches clothing etc etc. 

why dont they want a magic australian number? because they own the trademark
and they have a perfectly valid distribution chain. of course that doesnt seem
to be good enough to have a web site in commercial australian domain. madness.

the current policy have *killed* the market for international web hosting
in australia. literaly thousands of companies could be interested pre olympics
in mirroring in australia, except for the slight draw back that they cant
get a commercial domain. then of course everyone complains there is no content
in australia.

why didnt the policy maker think about this? the only justification given by Robert
Elz and MIT is that the current policy keeps the registrars out of court. surely
a porperly constructed t&C would have a similar effect? why hogtie everyone else
because of the phobia of the existing registrars.

competitive registrars would no doubt not be so cowardly.

> | when are you people going to start listening to your end users?
> Why should be a free-for-all? Heck.. why not just abolish
> classification all together and just be vicc&#167;, or even just
> vicc&#167;cia.
> I personally don't understand what the point in having .net and
> .com (or for that matter and distinctions, where
> there _is_ no distinction between their policies. Similarly, 
> it seems to me these gTLDs that are being proposed is just half a
> dozen extra domains for a company to register to "secure" their
> brand on the Internet. 
> If you want a domain with no policies, perhaps * (imho, seems
> better than if its to have no policy), but what's the advantage
> of further diluting existing 2LDs, which for most cases cover the
> different types of possible registrants quite well?

the point is that there is perfectly valid good reasons, repeadetly ignored
by the dns policy keepers for spaces without restrictions.

.biz, .firm .trade .cmpy .shop etc

would a) relieve name clashes b) open up the market for internationl hosting and
encourage more os content in australian nets. c) speed up the registration process
d) remove the current uncertainty from the registration process. e) elimitate the lunacy
of having to register a business name to bypass the name space policy.

there are *no* good reasons for forcing all commercial entities through the singular
hoop of by all means keep your rules but allow an alternative,
the current situation is out and out fascism. and has no place in a modern western

Received on Wed May 06 1998 - 12:16:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC