Are you after a silent email address?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Stephan" <akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton


> Hi,
>
> I can't figure out why I should get excited about this.  As a general
> public, small business person, who has been forced to get involved in this
> "digital terrorism" masquerading as domain name policy over something
called
> the .au domain space, I find it difficult to remain relatively positive
and
> constructive.  The whole process seems counter intuitive.
>
> My view is that the ACCC should actually formally investigate the possible
> anti-competitive nature of the auDA concept of the .au domain space.  In
my
> view, and I could be wrong, there is some sort of anti-competitive
monopoly
> given to auDA by someone over a public facility that happens to end in an
> address .au.  As au is the offical abbreviation for Australia, then
> obviously there must be some significance in the period.  Neither
Australia
> Post, nor any other courier type company, has a general monopoly over the
> carriage of correspondence to a person or business whose address happens
to
> end in Australia or the official abbreviation au (I have actually had post
> mail sent with au as the country and it arrived without a hitch).  If
anyone
> wanted to set up a company to deliver mail (including their own mail box
> system), I don't believe they have to get a license that entitles them to
> deliver articles to an Australian (au) address.  So, why should anyone
have
> to get permission to set up a mail service to send mail to an electronic
> address that ends in .au?  Why can't we have a system whereby anyone who
> wants to set up a mail service can, and we use a simple address format
> exactly like we have now for a letter, or a telegram in the olden days.
>
> For example, say I wanted to set up a mail service that offered a specific
> service, why can't I set up a router address (e.g. lpl.au) and my
customers
> would simply have an address xxx&#167;lpl.au and I would redriect the  mail
after
> providing the value adding service.  Or, maybe xxx&#167;usmail, or even
> xxx&#167;apo.au (for Australia Post).  As this would be a business enterprise
it
> is linked to existing ASIC records and rules.  By extension, a domain name
> in one of the public routers (e.g. .com) a company would link this to its
> company name, again within the ASIC framework.  All fees, etc are just
> caught up in the annual fee to ASIC.
>
> In this process, the need for auDA disappears and all of the jostling of
how
> to make a buck out of small companies like me go away.
>
> Never have I seen anyone actually ask what us poor pleb customers might
> actually want out of a system. I see lots of stuff about what some fairly
> narrow interested folks have done and still want to do and lots of emotion
> over minutia.
>
> Generally, I believe the expectations are quite simple.
>
> Mail can actually be addressed to your company and not some name that is
at
> the whim (without justification) of some inane and self-interested policy
> that has not necessarily been implemented with rigour.  Under this
approach
> people could actually use a structured ordinary address such as
> adrian.stephan&#167;pob.5068.3149.au and it would arrive.  Why can't this be
> done?  Is it because auDA has not worked out how to charge for it?  Or, is
> it actually anti-competitive that, say, Australia Post because they have
the
> post office box system cannot do this because of some rules within auDA or
> the legislation.  The same logic applies to Document Exchange.  This could
> be xxx.yyy&#167;nnnnn.dx.au.  Imagine the uproar the Government would have if
> Australia Post decided not to deliver mail to addresses, people or
> organisations because it didn't like the words even though the name was
> lawfully approved and/or of good social status.  In fact, it seems to me
> that Australia Post offers an agile delivery address protocol that the
auDA
> process will never attain.  If Australia Post was allowed to use its agile
> delivery protocols in the  electronic au address, auDA would be wiped out.
> It is a matter of culture, and quite frankly, based on experience the
> internet folks are trying to impose a circa 1500 word culture. The culture
> is dysfunctional for what is needed in the market place.
>
> I would actually like to use a mail router identifier that clearly
> identified I was dealing with a provider that had processes that would
deal
> with mail that did not meet pre-defined criteria (e.g. xxxx, virus, spam,
> etc)and protected the integrity that I try to stand for, as hard as it is.
> These processes are about but they seem to be disjointed, asynchronous and
> do not provide the one stop shop for integrity protection that I am
looking
> for.  That is, I am prepared to pay for a service that "gatekeeps" my
> electronic mail. I am not interested in some complex process, I want it
very
> simple.  I want to set filters that unless the mail is bona fide and
> addressed xxx.yyy&#167;lpl.au it doesn't get delivered to me.  Is this
available
> but has not been promulgated to us mere mortals!
>
> The most important feature I am looking for is a process that protects the
> identity of the entity.  The current process does not do that, in fact it
is
> actually going to put my company name up for auction.  How can I protect
the
> integrity of my company identity when the digital terrorists don't give a
> stuff about anyone else's identity except how they jostle to screw a few
> bucks out of me each year.  How can this system actually comply with the
> OECD requirements for idnetity protection when auDA policy is openly
> chucking out the idea of being able to use your exact company name as a
> domain name?  I want to know who I am dealing with by company name and I
> want people to find me by company name.  Maybe, the OECD should come and
> audit the policy as well.
>
> I am prepared to pay more for a better service.  I don't want some el
cheapo
> deal that means I have to deal with a lot of unwanted mail or denies me
the
> expectation to use my company name as a domain name.  I shouldn't have to
> beg like a mongrel dog for my company name as my domain name, nor should I
> have to bid for something that others have not had to do so.  No one has
> ever been able to explain to me when I cannot use my company name to
> identify my company, in fact most laws requires anyone to do so.  So, what
> makes the internet so special that it can deny what is logical to everyone
> else except the "chosen ones"?
>
> The whole process needs to reinvent itself or it will self-destruct with
the
> current recursive "group think".
>
> I still can't get excited about the approval as suggested, because I think
> the current process is inherently anti-competitive.
>
> Could be wrong though and maybe I don't understand something fundamental.
>
> Rgds
>
> Adrian
>
> ===========================================
> Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
> Logistics Pty Ltd
> POB 5068
> PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
> Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
> akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au
> adrian.stephan&#167;logistic.com.au
> www.logistic.com.au
> ===========================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David G Thompson [mailto:davidgthompson&#167;yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2001 16:16 PM
> To: au DNS List
> Subject: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm rather surprised that one or more of this
> list's subscribers hasn't found the time to send
> a bouquet (as opposed to the more common
> brickbats) to the list congratulating auDA and
> more specifically auDA hardworking Executive
> congratulating them on the announcement of the
> contract on foot with RegistrarsAsia Australian
> subsidiary.
>
> If the number of e-mails to this list in the past
> few years bemoaning the monopoly status of
> .com.au (not to mention .net.au, org.au et al)
> were printed out and lined up, they would stretch
> from Queen St Melbourne to Faraday St Carlton and
> most probably head up St Georges Road for some
> considerable distance.
>
> Conpicious in their silence are the holder(s) of
> the IP associated with Goodmedia <smiles>. BTW I
> have no shares in Goonmedia.
>
> List members might want to spend a small amount
> of time considering how much sweat and toil has
> gone into making this happen.
>
> I am happy to pipe up and state the bleedingly
> obvious. Congratulations auDA and particularly
> Chris Disspain and Jo Lim.
>
> This is a great .au DNS occaison. Australian DN
> holders will no doubt reap the benefits of this
> decision in the years henceforth.
>
> >From the MV Ca Hottub
>
>
>
> DGT
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
> your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
> or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (330 subscribers.)
>
>