|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Vic Cinc
|> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:33 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Domain dispute heats up
|> 
|> Ron Stark [ronstark§snapsite.com.au] wrote:
|> > My two penn'th -  if you're going to ascertain whether a 
|> new product 
|> > (in this case a .au domain name) should be launched, it's no good 
|> > asking those select few who may / would prosper by its 
|> introduction, to whit registrars.
|> > 
|> > The only valid test is to ask those who would be asked to 
|> pay for it, 
|> > to whit registrants.  If it's going to add value to 
|> custoners, go for 
|> > it.  If its primary purpose is to give registrars another 
|> revenue stream, forget it.
|> 
|> rubish. policy as we have been told is indiferent to 
|> registrars losses or gains.
|> 
|> the only question to ask: is there a demand or not?

That is the only question suppliers are interested in, and of course, if they
can profit by meeting that demand.  AuDA and policy is not interested in the
profit and demand is qualified by the benefits or negative impact meeting the
demand may introduce.  Issues which suppliers don't care much about.

Vic has been tossing a figure of 1 million as wanting to open up the
namespace, personally I don't give that figure much weight as I don't know how
it was derived and I suspect it isn't a true indication.  Even if accepted it
means there are another 39 million people to consider at a minimum before
policy is changed.

Having one of the suppliers do the wrong thing and being taken to task over it
isn't a good beginning to getting policy changed.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch