Re: [DNS] 92 million reasons......

Re: [DNS] 92 million reasons......

From: Matthew King <mking§cinfo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:06:25 +1100
My goodness...

Out of curiosity does anyone know just how ready is auDA  to take over
control and initiate things such as opening up the monopoly, changing some
old policies and so on. If they are (???) perhaps in light of the
information below some very serious lobbying has to take place ASAP. Some
very serious concerns have been raised, primarily how can a monopoly be
allowed to go public? Particularly as those in charge of the monopoly are
quite comfortable with the status quo and are even keener about wrapping
things up in red tape to entrench its position. ie check out recent SMH
peice 7 Oct on greenmailers... (And by the way the above comments are of
course just the opinions of this humble scribe) Perhaps it is time for the
Ministers office to actually enforce the handover to auDA. (On a secondary
note can anyone inform me - (off list if required) just what the Ministers
office really wants, expects, desires, if they actually care,  ect...)

Matthew  King

By the way some thoughts re. major policy changes needed.

* The easy selling of .com.au domains, I heard how just how it was done
over the weekend and I did not know whether to laugh or cry.
* Generic names, forget an auction. have a period of time for people to
apply for the domains they want then randomly pick one for each and then
charge the standard ammount. I would normally advocate an auction but this
system seems more interesting. (Please not like SOCOG however) This could
be auDA's first real task. ie don't let INA do it.....
* The opening up of the database monopoly. goes without saying really...
* I am beginning to think some sort of linkage to trading names is a
reasonable idea but no stupid generic name restrictions please (see above)
* Community standards? I don't care what consenting adults do at home nor
do I care where you travel on the internet, what you look nor what you
read. This one has to go...
* Location domains should be kept asid. Sold to Australia Post or to the
local council perhaps?  However I would point out I have a vested interest
in this one (www.bondibeach.com) so I have had a little trouble working out
a logical framework. Yet the gut feeling is that it should be seen as
national infrastructure. ie the only people with the right to it should be
Gov. based bodies (that represent us all). like Australia post. A bit like
green corridors kept asid for future rail or road links. It's there now and
could be usefull for something or other later down the track ...
* Despite the above point domains should not be tied to trademarks etc.
Acme widgets with a turnover of $20,000 should have as much right to a
domain acme.com.au as Acme Inc with a turnover of $20,000,000. If they get
in early they should be rewarded.
* Having a trade mark however should allow you to get a domian name. So
companies could have multiple domians for products. Basically it should be
trated as an ACN or RBN or as a stat dec for trading under your name (no
special treatment just the ability to register)
* Any thoughts on other legitimate claims to be able to register?
Government based of course. (Despite being a free market capitalist at
heart I really feel that the gov. as the peoples representative has a part
to play.)
* No more subjective tests for any domain. ie. .edu and org......
* A form of supply class accreditation or seal of approval. Nothing too
harsh or expensive but I would like it to be a sign that a company follows
industry guidlines. (which have to be written of course) (be good to each
other etc..)
* A formal appeal process for domain name disputes and for disputes re. the
service of supply class members.

Any thoughts, comments, death threats etc...

Matt



>Is everybody aware that INA is about to list.
>
><snip from
>news.com.au>
>
>   Uni aims for $92m sale
>   By NIC HOPKINS
>
>   29oct99
>
>   THE University of Melbourne hopes it will earn nearly $92.5 million
>from
>   the sale of shares in its domain name registry business, Melbourne
>IT.
>
>   The float, through JB Were & Son, will be the second-largest in the
>   Internet sector in Australia, beaten only by the $160.8 million
>initial
>   public offer of shares in ecorp, the former PBL Online.
>
>   The initial public offer will cut the stake held by Melbourne
>University's
>   commercialisation arm, Melbourne Enterprise International, from 100
>   per cent to 15 per cent.
>
>   It will raise $85 million and a small amount of new equity will be
>   offered to raise another $7.5 million. Total market capitalisation of
>the
>   company will be close to $110 million after the float.
>
>   Melbourne IT operates as an independent commercial company best
>   known for its division Internet Names WorldWide. This administers the
>   .com.au registry and provides services in .com, .net, .org and .co.uk
>   domains.
>
>   Internet Names WorldWide was first known as Internet Names
>   Australia, which managed the .com.au registry. It is the third
>largest
>   domain space in the world after Germany's .de and Britain's .co.uk.
>
>   This year, INA was accredited by the US-based Internet Corporation
>   of Assigned Names and Numbers to officially administer the .com, .net
>   and .org domain names around the world, and it changed its name to
>   Internet Names World Wide.
>
>   At present, the business has a monopoly in Australia and, while it
>has
>   most to lose when competition arrives, it is confident that the
>   expansion of the market will be strong enough to ensure revenue
>   growth.
>
>   It is understood the share offer values Melbourne IT at about 30
>   times historical revenues and 4.5 expected revenues for financial
>   2000-01.
>
>   JB Were has been road-showing the float to institutional investors
>all
>   this week. Deloitte Corporate Finance is also advising on the offer.
>
>   Some potential investors are concerned at the magnitude of the
>   selldown, perceived in some quarters as "cashing in its chips".
><unsnip>
>
>Is anyone concerned that this story is occurring prior to any handover
>to AUDA.
>Obvious questions for AUDA and KRE are:
>1)Will any NEW INA be obliged to hand over anything?
>2)Will the board be obliged to act for it's shareholders as all other
>boards are, and if so, why in the world would they be all keen to hand
>the control for the .com.au and the WHOIS database over to anyone?
>3)Will the .com.au be handed over at all?
>4)Have we all lost/wasted our membership money because now there exists
>little chance that a NEW LISTED COMPANY will be obliged to give away
>it's best asset?
>5) What safeguards have been put in place to ensure the .com.au will be
>handed over?
>6)What safeguards have been put in place to ensure the whois database is
>freely accessible and available to auda and it's members?
>
>
>Just a few questions from a concerned auda member ...
>
>*Perhaps KRE could take 5 minutes from his very busy schedule and give
>us his take on some pertinent issues for us all.
>I for one would be very interested to hear his slant on things.
>
>Bye.
>Mike.
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>260 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;waia.asn.au to be removed.
Received on Mon Nov 01 1999 - 08:06:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:08 UTC