Ian Johnston [ian.johnston§setel.com.au] wrote:
> Aristedes Maniatis wrote in to <dns&#167;auda.org.au> Tuesday, November 21, 2000
> 8:05 PM
> 
> > I have a proposal:
> >
> > * complete opening of .com.au 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) recommend
> should be used and why?   See some methods set out in the Panel's Proposal
> 4.2.2 at
> <http://www.auda.org.au/panel/name/papers/publicreport.html#fences>.

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 .com.au or .net.au

the historical rules associated with the name space are not really designed
to protect the public, nothing stops me registering a business name and
squat on someones potential domain. au rules are open to abuse, misinterpretation
and cause much end user friction: why cant I have my name X why does blah 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 .com.au then for a .com?

the argument that business are more likely to get the name they want because
its more or less reserved for them is rubish, most businesses abreviate
names, I hold domains people keep asking for in .com.au because its an abbrevation.
arguments that generic names give unfair advantages to its owner is total archaic
socialist waffle.

see amazon.com vs b&n book.com. and even if did what business is it of
the domain system to be concerned about end user business activity? in reality
the moratorium on generic and place names seems to be set up to protect dilution
of the income to the .com.au registrar. absolutely unaceptable.

arguments that open slather fills up the names space and hence make it unuseable
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 open 
to currently.

agruments that dns is not a directory  are incoherent, surely the dns servers
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 "investors"
is just pure hysteria. not one shred of evidence shows this happens overseas
or that it would happen here. and even if it did the dispute resolution system
prevents people from "investing" in domains. and if more tld in .au were allowed
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 them.

should aunic check for preconfigured servers? no way, yet another waste of time
its the hostees problem only and if they cant get it right then host the domain
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 companies
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 fact
.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