At 12:15 PM 23/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Ron Ipsen [ron§comu.net.au] wrote:
> >
> > I see that there is a lot of discussion pointing to the .au space as being
> > competitive with .com.net etc.
> >
> > I do not see this as being the case.
> >
> > I see the free for all domains as being about as legitimate as a hotmail
> > address. The rules and policies we are building are (IMHO) about 
> preserving
> > the integrity and thus the inherit value of the .au space.
> >
> > We are not about competing (again IMHO) with the rest of the worlds 
> systems
> > but about protecting and conserving and building on what is uniquely ours
> > for ourselves, our communities and those that will follow us.
>
>I really dont see how this form of jingoistic nationalism is worthwhil and its
>extremly short sighted, global competition is a fact of life, I think you 
>better
>start getting used to it.  when we set our pricing on hosting we carefully 
>look
>at overseas prices, cause if we are not competitive our customer start hosting
>overseas.

Price followship is not a sustainable economic strategy for a small 
enterprise. The bigger companies can always undercut you.

There are more ways to compete than on just pricing. (and/or availability)


>as for integrity and value in .au names I really have no idea what you are
>talking about.

sorry

>  its a name space benevolantly lent to an employee of
>melbourne university by an os body for a protocol that is rapidly outliving
>its use by date.

as these things happen.


>its not exactly a rare natural treasure like a beach or a large orange rock
>that needs to be preserved for future generations is it. dns will exist as 
>long
>as there is no new protocol that suplants it. protocols come and go, perhaps
>you would like to set up a protocol museum so our children childrens can say
>"oh wow dad look at that hierarchical name space thing they had in 2000".

Try not to confuse the dns (in whatever technical protocol/form) with the 
namespace. They are really 2 different aspects


>dns is not a national treasure, it is not a national asset. it s currently
>being privately exploited by a couple of australian private companies for
>the benefit of their shareholders.

One view I spose.


>it is a name space lent to us for a global protocol that may or may not
>persist.

The protocol may or may not persist, and yes indeed its longevity is in 
doubt. The naming conventions of the namespace however are quite a 
different matter.

>  and its commercialisation has made it into a commodity item.

I agree on this one for sure, and personally dislike this aspect a lot.


>Vic