Kimberley Heitman wrote October 30, 2001 8:33 AM

> Speaking as the EFA auDA rep, rather than on behalf of the auDA Board,
> I'd be happy if tenderers for the non-commercial domains looked at
> means of keeping the price to the end user down - provided that the
> standard of service was comparable with the commercial domains.

... snip ...

> I am interested and generally supportive of what Adrian and Jeremy are
> trying to do, and like them would like to see costs to end-users kept as
> low as possible. I don't know necessarily that a wealthy charity has a
> greater claim to a free domain name than a poor small business, but if a
> plausible way of funding the costs of introducing competition in the
> non-profit domains can be found, I'm all ears.

Kimberley

I too would like to see costs to end-users kept as low as possible; notably
Australia's small businesses, including ~750,000 micro-businesses (>4
employees).  This is important in view of the relatively low take-up of
e-commerce by Australian small business.

As the representative for SETEL <www.setel.com.au> on the auDA Competition
Panel (& Name Panel) I argued for competition models and name policies
directed the costs to end-users and prospective end-users being kept as low
as possible.

One option I put forward to the Panel was for an industry owned and operated
entity, run on a cost recovery basis, to provide the registry services (see
Endnote 1 below).  The Australian telcoms industry's "Industry Number
Management Service" model works well, as do shared registry system on most
European countries

The Panel's final report included, amongst other things, the following (see
Endnote 2 below):

"Proposals may be for all, some or one of the open 2LD registries.
Proposals may be submitted by for-profit or not-for-profit entities, single
firms or consortia, commercial operators or community-interest groups."

Timing is likely to be an issue for this kind of model (for some or all
domains) to be put in place, given that tenders close on 12 November, unless
a tenderer were to take a lead role.

Ian

~~~~
Ian Johnston, Principal Consultant
Australian Information Brokers (ABN 79 613 435 633)
Information research, consultancy and marketing services
Information economy, e-commerce and telecommunications
Canberra   Australian Capital Territory   Australia
02 6259 7777(B)   02 6258 3409(F)   0413 990 112 (M)
www.infobrokers.com.au   mailto:ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au
















>From SETEL's submission to the auDA Competition Panel
<http://www.setel.com.au/publications/public/subs/058.htm>

* Registry ownership and control - industry

SETEL has raised the question of an industry owned and operated entity to
provide the registry services.  The Australian telecommunications industry’s
Industry Number Management Service Pty Ltd (INMS) cited as an example.

In most European countries the DNS is operated as a shared registry system
on a cost recovery base with ISPs under contracts and without government
involvement.  The entry barriers for market parties to participate in the
organisation overseeing the DNS are quite low.  For example, the foundation
that manages the shared registry for the Netherlands counted 679
participants on 1 May 2000 [3]

An industry owned entity, operating the registry in an efficient, fair,
equitable, low cost and collaborative manner, is model that should not be
ruled out.  In SETEL's view there is clearly scope to include the option of
an industry owned and operated model in the report to the auDA Board.

[3]  Rood, Hendrik What's in a name, what's in a number: some
characteristics of identifiers in electronic networks, Elsevier Science,
Telecommunications Policy 24 (2000) 533-552

~~~~~


>From the Competition Panel's Final Report
<http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-competition-final.html#TOC2.3>

2.3.6 In light of these comments, the Panel considers that auDA should allow
the market to determine the number of 2LD registries in the .au domain by
ensuring that the tender process does not exclude any type of proposal.
Proposals may be for all, some or one of the open 2LD registries. Proposals
may be submitted by for-profit or not-for-profit entities, single firms or
consortia, commercial operators or community-interest groups. auDA must
ensure full and adequate coverage of all open 2LDs. Moreover, auDA must
ensure that public benefit outcomes are preserved by evaluating all tenders
against the same minimum technical and consumer safeguard criteria, and
choosing the tender that offers the ‘best value for money’. The Panel
recommends that concerns noted in paragraph 2.3.5 about monopoly power are
given due consideration by auDA in evaluating registry tenders.


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 317 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.