>Following this debate, and knowing no better I was beginning to think
>something
>might be wrong.  But sorry, Matthew, but this claim seems a bit wide of
>the mark
>to me.

This is the whole problem. The allocation of domain names should not be
subjective like it currently is. Wide of what mark? Yours, mine the guy
down the hall? It is exactly the same debate that is raised about
"community standards". Some guy said a long time ago something about
throwing the first stone, I feel  it applies here.

However I digress. It is no use saying  this is how the policy stands and
working from there the big picture is that WE NEED TO CHANGE THE POLICY.

>I would intuitively expect that an edu name would indicate an educational
>institution of some kind or something intimately connected with them.
>Let's face
>it, we're all involved in education to some degree or the other, but that
>doesn't
>mean we all get edu names.  And, it doesn't really matter how many Ph D's
>(paid
>or unpaid) you've have on your staff list.

Not everybody feels they are in education. My company is not so why would I
want it?> However if any organisation has an educational slant or they
believe they do who are you to say they are not worthy. The point being the
allocation of domains should not be based on " intuitition".

Policy should be based on  clear logical lines. If someone wants a domain
and its free let them have it. The newer internet consumers are not that
stupid in that we do not have to hold their hands by proxy by vetting
domains. That is the old way of doing things.

>Your organization looks a little too much like a Special Interest Group to me.
>Why do they want an edu name anyway?  It seems to be an (explicit or implicit)
>attempt to acquire the status of a university or college for the group or
>their
>journal.  A journal - no matter how scholarly, respected, or whatever,
>does not
>make an educational institution.  Why not go for an org name?

The journal was rejected, however the current application is for a body
that is run by educators for educators. Its not like they are a charity or
a fundrasing body which is clearly a .org.au

>rather be rubbing shoulders with universities and colleges than recipe
>clubs and
>4WD nuts.  It's a kudos thing.

This is not the point. It is not a status thing at all. I have sat in on
their site development meetings and I cannot express the bewilderment of
these highly qualified educators that they are not deemed worthy of an
edu.au domain. A lot probably were teaching while many on this list were
still learning to walk. They educate, thus they should have an edu based
site.

>Would you, for example, like edu names give to:
>
> a company that teaches MS Office to corporates,
YES
> a group who provide Buddhist meditation training,
YES
> a organization set up to teach the facts on abortion,
YES
> a football club,
Don't know about this one if they want to teach football or give lessons YES
> a collective that gets new players up to speed with Doom,
YES

>All are involved in education for one reason or another.  But if you let
>anyone
>in the whole thing becomes meaningless; the line has to go somewhere.   I
>see you
>may have be closer to an edu claim than at least some of the above list but
>you're still not what I would expect with an edu name.

Again do you think consumers are that stupid? I question your point about
meaningless. What exactly do you refer to? The rights of consumers to free
choice, the different prefix between say VIC and NSW (Oh they should not
have mobile phone numbers that are not state based, people will become
confused! - this rational  is just as valid as yours i.e a complete
misunderstanding about where the net is going or phones for that matter)

Domains are turning into extensions of phone numbers. The edu or org or com
is just a rough guide. Why should one person dictate yes or no or what
exactly is an educational institution.

What possible rational is there for making edu.au just for Universities
(does this include Bond by the way?) or larger schools. What about a small
local mulslim school for instance? Is it a organisation by your rule of
thumb? Or a school?

THE POINT: By having specific rules as we have now we each case is
subjectively judged by one person. If there was one rule ie you want it you
get it then we free ourselves and our clients. We should not dumb down the
Australian public we all do ourselves a disservice by doing so.

>BTW I'm certainly not anti-Christian, pro-Establishment, or something
>along those
>lines.

This is the whole point. I don't care what you are. or what you do in the
privacy of your home. "I really don't care". What I care about if someone
judges me and passes sentance without recourse to appleal or not having the
freedom in the end to seek to change the law.

Matthew King