Re: [DNS] .au space proposal

Re: [DNS] .au space proposal

From: Ian Johnston <ian.johnston§>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:41:19 +1100

OK, let's assume the policy is abolished and, say, 5000 generic and 240,000
geographic domain name licences were available in the .au 2LD.

(Indeed, Proposal 4.2.2 in the Name Panel paper proposes the relaxation or
abolition of the policy, and Proposal 4.2.1 is to retain the policy with
some  improvements.)

You want open slather, fine.  What do you exactly mean by open slather?
Would first come, first served at $X per licence be OK? ... where, say,
X>$10,000, then progressively reduced X over time until all generic name
licences had been allocated?  (I don't have any particular views about what
X might be.)

The Panel has noted the following methods of allocation might be used:

- First come, first served: generic/geographic domain names are licensed to
applicants on a first-come, first-served basis.

- Lotteries: lotteries are a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory
method of allocating domain names licences, and involve applying a chance
generator to determine the allocation of a domain name licence.

- Tenders: two kinds of tenders may be used to allocate generic and
geographic domain name licences - highest bid tenders, and 'beauty
contests'; in the latter, the monetary bid is only one of the factors
considered in assessing the tender.

- Auctions: auctions would involve competitive price bidding for generic and
geographic names.

Ian Johnston
Member of the Name Policy Advisory Panel
Member of the Competition Model Advisory Panel

----- Original Message -----
From: Vic Cinc <vicc&#167;>
To: <dns&#167;>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DNS] .au space proposal

> Ian Johnston [ian.johnston&#167;] wrote:
> > Aristedes Maniatis wrote in to <dns&#167;> Tuesday, November 21,
> > 8:05 PM
> >
> > > I have a proposal:
> > >
> > > * complete opening of to all names. The time has now passed to
> > > even pretend common words are restricted.
> >
> > Aristedes
> >
> > If the Panel were to adopt your proposal, what method of allocation of
> > domain name licences would you (or other subscribers to this list)
> > should be used and why?   See some methods set out in the Panel's
> > 4.2.2 at
> > <>.
> open slather works best, nothing works as efficiently as .com.  and
> now there is a dispute resolution mechanism which auda should adopt there
> is no longer any real concern over squating or domain "investors".
> the .au domain should be opened up as well. there is no real
> reason to force people into or
> the historical rules associated with the name space are not really
> to protect the public, nothing stops me registering a business name and
> squat on someones potential domain. au rules are open to abuse,
> and cause much end user friction: why cant I have my name X why does blah
> have that name Y?  why was my name rejected? why do I have to buy a
business name
> I am not going to use to get the name I want. why do I have to pay so
> much more for then for a .com?
> the argument that business are more likely to get the name they want
> its more or less reserved for them is rubish, most businesses abreviate
> names, I hold domains people keep asking for in because its an
> arguments that generic names give unfair advantages to its owner is total
> socialist waffle.
> see vs b&n and even if did what business is it of
> the domain system to be concerned about end user business activity? in
> the moratorium on generic and place names seems to be set up to protect
> of the income to the registrar. absolutely unaceptable.
> arguments that open slather fills up the names space and hence make it
> are laughable, its just proof of efficiency and the fact many more tlds
> should be opened up.
> as for the fact that the rules prevent litigation is totaly unfounded,
> there is not one shred of evidence that open slather in .au would open
> up the registrars to excessive litigation or any litigation they are not
> to currently.
> agruments that dns is not a directory  are incoherent, surely the dns
> should be used for whatever purpose the end user cares to. and the old
> chestnut that .au would be flooded if it was opened by overseas
> is just pure hysteria. not one shred of evidence shows this happens
> or that it would happen here. and even if it did the dispute resolution
> prevents people from "investing" in domains. and if more tld in .au were
> then the argument would go away as many different tld would be available
> for alternatives. one of my customers "invested" in a dozen .com domains
> and has now canceled them as he couldnt find a single buyer for any of
> should aunic check for preconfigured servers? no way, yet another waste of
> its the hostees problem only and if they cant get it right then host the
> with someone that can. only technical purists want "consistency", its
> an irrelavence to everyone else. in fact technical purists should have no
> say in the dns as their focus is on technical tidyness rather then
> customer service. and that seems to be the focus of much of the rules,
> stylistic cleanliness and total disregard for the ISPs and hosting
> customers who actually pay for the service and the ISPs who have to bear
the brunt
> of the end user friction.
> the real meat here is competition, the policies are a distraction to that
> .au needs competition and needed it badly 4 years ago. absolutely every
> step should be taken to ensure that nothing hinders or delays competition
> any further.
> Vic Cinc
> former AUda director
> --
> 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.
> 359 subscribers. Archived at (dns/dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Wed Nov 22 2000 - 11:41:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC