From: Chris Hooker 
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2007 2:32 PM
To: Jo Lim; Murray Kester
Subject: Re: [Members] auDA Panel releases Issues Paper for comment
Hello Jo,

I have reviewed issue paper, I'm unsure if I should reply to the list or direct to you, so I'm only 
replying to you for now.

I agree with most of what the document covers, however I'd like to highlight the following:

1.2 1 - The .AU TLD should have a policy to prevent domain squatters, and be available to 
Australians only, OR, if there is a landrush period, then it should only be open to Australian 
registrants before it is opened to the entire global community.

1.2 2 - The existing policy should be adjusted to prevent squatters (there are currently many 
license holders who are "squatting" as a result of loopholes in the auDA policy).

7.3 -  I disagree with option 1, consolidating existing 2LD heirachies into the single CCTLD of 
.AU will cause problems amongst registrants who hold for example a .NET.AU license, but they are 
unable to secure the .AU license because the license holder of the .COM.AU was given first  
preference, and are then subject to lose the .NET.AU license if it is decommissioned. Plus it will 
reduce the number of total domain registrations within the .AU namespace.

Additionally, many ISPs and similar operators use .COM.AU for the commercial side of their business, 
whilst .NET.AU might be used for operational purposes (ie hostnames of core infrastructure, internal 
email addresses etc), and ORG.AU might be used for any charities they run etc.

Option 2 will result in a much more desirable outcome for all concerned.

7.9 "increased commercial opportunities and revenue for the Australian domain name industry is not 
in itself a sufficient business case for making a change", whilst it is true that the addition of 
an extra TLD, especially one as simple as .AU will increase revenues for registrars in itself due 
to existing license holders wanting to secure their IP, the single extension ".AU" has much more 
"sex-appeal" than a .ID.AU for example, which doesn't have the same ring to it.

We find most individuals and hobbyists would likely opt for a .COM or .INFO equivalent of their 
desired name if the domain, or sometimes even .DE and .SE, despite the fact that the registrant is 
not geographically located in that region, or might not even know what the TLD is for, it is a 
simple and easy TLD, and we find this appeals to many registrants in Australia and other regions.

I believe the creation of the TLD will attract additional segments of the market who are otherwise 
not interested in the .ID.AU TLD, therein creating additional revenue aside from the obvious, that 
would otherwise invested in another TLD.

7.13 an example of where the policy has prevented the registration of a wanted domain: mammal.com.au 
- a "parked" page using PPC managed by SEDO - basically the registrant is placing automated content 
from a third party to satisfy AUDA's requirements, whilst holding a domain that the current 
registrant secured using policy reason 2 "closely and substantially connected" which is preventing 
an interested party from registering the .COM.AU name (namely a band 'mammal' with the exact name 
registered as a business with the NSW Office of Fair trading), who have since opted for a .COM 
alternative.

7.15 "Should registrants be allowed to sell their .AU domain names?" NO. The .COM namespace is 
corrupted and there are far to many people who are suffering because of people using shameless 
tactics to secure large numbers of domain names for extortion of legitimate and eligible people. 
There are already a lot of under-the-table deals going on behind the scenes that registrars and 
AUDA are unaware of, which take place in the .AU namespace already because of certain difficult to 
police rules set out in the existing policy, the .AU namespace is nowhere near as tainted as .COM, 
and we'd like to see it stay that way.

7.18 - Secondary market. I don't like this idea myself, as it will result in squatters and the 
like who are only registering domains to extort money from people who have a legitimate purpose to 
use them.

If a secondary market was allowed, it should be policed and have fair rules determined by the 
Australian online community and AUDA to ensure that legitimate businesses aren't exploited, or take 
a similar approach to the auction/ballots run by auDA in the past.

I hope my comments are of use.

Regards,

Chris Hooker