Gee mark, i saw an e-mail coming at 1:30 and i thought it was David
Goldstein :>

Ginger

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:31 AM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au


Hi all,

well, apologies to everyone from me for having missed that the selection
criteria are in the call for proposals, not in the Terms of Reference.  I
actually hadn't got around to reading the call for new 2LDs - I'd only got
up to reading the TOR.  Sorry about that folks.


Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Lim [mailto:jo.lim§auda.org.au]
> Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2002 11:52
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au
>
>
> Hi Mark
>
> See the Call for New 2LD Proposals document at
> http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-newname-2002/proposals.html
>
> This document clearly lists the matters that proposals should address
> under each category. For example, proposals for new closed 2LDs should
> include:
>
> a. the actual name of the 2LD (eg. "name.au")
> b. the purpose of the 2LD
> c. the intended users of the 2LD (including registrants and
> non-registrants who would benefit from the 2LD)
> d. the estimated number of potential registrants in the 2LD
> e. the funding model for 2LD operations
> f. a statement addressing the selection criteria
> g. an indication of why the 2LD should be closed rather than open and
> what value is added by it being closed..
> h. the eligibility criteria that would apply in the 2LD
> i. the policy rules that would apply in the 2LD
> j. the peak body that would manage the 2LD.
>
> It also lists the following selection criteria to be used by the Panel
> in evaluating proposals:
>
> 1. The 2LD must be robust, sustainable and viable. For example, in the
> case of closed 2LDs there should be a clear, long-term commitment from
> the body which it is proposed would manage the 2LD.
> 2. The 2LD should serve the needs of users, or a community of users,
> that are not well served by the existing 2LDs. For example, a proposal
> should define the user group and indicate clearly why its needs are not
> as well served at present as they would be with the proposed 2LD.
> 3. There must be clear support for the 2LD, in particular among the
> users it is intended to serve, and in general terms from the wider
> community. Strong evidence of this support should be provided (eg.
> letters of support, the resolution of a governing body, or survey
> evidence). There should be clear evidence that user community support is
> broadly representative of that community. Reasonable objections to the
> creation of the 2LD from the wider community will be taken into account
> by the Panel during its public consultation.
> 4. The 2LD should widen the choice of domain names available to users of
> the Australian DNS. For example, a proposed 2LD that simply duplicates
> an existing 2LD will generally not be considered to widen the choice of
> available domain names.
>
> I would encourage people to read this document and, if intending to
> submit a proposal to auDA, make sure they have addressed all relevant
> matters.
>
> Regards
>
> Jo Lim
> Chief Policy Officer
> .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA)
> ph 03 9349 4711    mob 0410 553 233
>
> Join the auDA Announcements list
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/announce
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2002 3:50 PM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> 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§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.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> 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.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.  (310 subscribers.)