For Alston's benifet

sex.au

then he can request
takedownnotice.sex.au

and wonder if they will be worth $69.69 each!!!

Rebecca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hughes" <effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au


> Most of the comments on this list about the possibility of new 2LDs in .au
> appear to be in the category of:
>
> "I don't agree with creating new 2LDs, even though I have no idea what
might
> be proposed, and therefore no idea what I'm objecting to".
>
> I recommend that people focus on concrete things to object to, rather than
> worrying about things that might never occur.
>
> If you're looking for things worthy of scrutiny, here's something for
y'all
> to work on.....
>
>
>
> First, have a read of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the New Names
> Advisory Panel.  Its at
> http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-newname-2002/tor.html.
>
> There are a couple of areas in it that concern me, and may be of interest
to
> others on the list.
>
>
>
>
>
> First Concern - have a look at points 1 & 2 under 'Activity and Outcome'.
> The TOR states:
>
> "1 auDA will issue a call for proposals for new 2LDs in the following
> categories:
> 1.1 Proposals for new open 2LDs
> 1.2 Proposals for new closed 2LDs
> 1.3 Proposals for new geographic 2LDs
> 1.4 Proposals for re-activating the existing conf.au and info.au 2LDs
> The auDA Board will specify the selection criteria applicable in each
> category.
>
> 2 The NNAP will evaluate new 2LD proposals using the selection criteria
> specified by the auDA Board."
>
>
> Surely that begs a few questions.  Such as:
>
> * What exactly is meant here by "Selection Criteria"?  Criteria that
> determines whether a proposal is for an 'open' or a 'closed' 2LD?
Criteria
> that determines which of two competing proposals for the same 2LD gets
> preference?  Eligibility criteria for Registrants in a proposed new 2LD?
> What??
> * Since this appears to be a policy issue, not a procedural issue, why is
> the auDA board, rather than the New Names Advisory Panel setting the
> criteria?
> * These criteria appear to be critical to any proposed new 2LD, since
> they're going to be used to evaluate the proposals.  So how does a
proposal
> for a new 2LD (due in by 31 May) address criteria that are unknown?  Are
> people going to spend their time submitting proposals only to find that
the
> proposal has no hope of getting up because it doesn't meet some criterion
> that isn't known?
> * What's supposed to happen - is the auDA board going to have a look at
the
> proposals, and then invent the selection criteria to evaluate them
against?
> * If the criteria already exist why aren't they spelled out in the TOR?
>
>
> auDA extending the closing date for submissions until one month after the
> selection criteria are made public might be a sensible move.  That gives
> time to determine a) whether its appropriate for the board to set those
> criteria and b) what the criteria are.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Second Concern -
>
> "The chair of the NNAP will be Derek Whitehead, Director Information
> Resources, Swinburne University of Technology."
>
> Derek chaired auDA's first panel - the review of 2LD policies - and had
the
> difficult task of being the groundbreaker and trying to work out how these
> policy development panels could be made to work in the real world.
> Therefore I have a fair bit of sympathy for his task on that panel.
> However, the actual outcome of that panel (the report) struggles to get
more
> than an 'average pass' mark because it didn't address many detailed policy
> issues and avoided taking some difficult decisions.  The effects of that
> 'average' report have not been significant as long as monopoly Registrar's
> remained.  The introduction of competing Registrars in the future will
> inevitably highlight the inadequacies of the outcome of that Name Policy
> Review Panel.
>
> I can guarantee that in the months after the introduction of the new
system
> with competing Registrars, this discussion list will spend much time
arguing
> backwards and forwards issues that should have been resolved in the
original
> Name Policy review panel report, but weren't.
>
> I don't mind auDA selecting Derek again to chair this new panel (he's
> experienced in this area), but the standard of the report this time had
> better be higher.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards, Mark
>
> Mark Hughes
> Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
> www.pplications.com.au
> +61 4 1374 3959
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (309 subscribers.)
>
>