From: Sam Bauers [sam@cofa.unsw.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, 3 September 2002 10:18 PM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Cc: mtearle@tearle.com Subject: 2LD comment Although not a "high-roller" in the DNS game, I do consider myself to be the bearer of reasonable knowledge of the DNS as well as some common sense. As such, I would like to offer my comments on the current 2LD proposals for the .AU namespace. I believe that your panel will give due consideration to all proposals, however I will only comment on those that I see to be of importance or circumstance. ---------------------------- * Geographic placename restrictions in .COM.AU Although most couldn't care less if WALGETT.COM.AU or PYMBLE.COM.AU were registered, many would find it abhorrent if BONDI.COM.AU or MELBOURNE.COM.AU were. As the current policy stands it is sensible, it's only flaw the method of deciding if a name is or isn't a place. These decisions need to be referred to a common gazette of some sort rather than the seemingly arbitrary decision of registrar/registry. With all apologies to Strathfield Car Radios ( STRATHFIELD.COM.AU ) et all, who seemed to have slipped in under the net (or more likely before the net was there.) Current holders of place name domains should be put on notice for one year and be allowed to gracefully phase in new domains for themselves. As for Daydream Island, I would think myself quite pleased if my product name were almost literally "on the map". However this is a clear example of the inadequacy of the current structure. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .PLACENAME.AU (OCOS proposal) A fine idea if reasonably implemented, however going beyond three levels ( PLACENAME.STATE.AU ) to four ( LOCALE.PLACENAME.STATE.AU ) is unwieldy at best. The only other similar model, is the geographic (original) part of .US It must be noted here that there is a significant difference between the US government model and the Australian government model that makes this system work in the US. Where in the US for the most part administration of major public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads, emergency services etc) is on a municipal level, in Australia these are the realms of the state governments. Most meaningful content could/would be limited to the state level, and the domain structure should not extend too far beyond this. Judging by the current standard of municipal web services in Australia, there is no great demand for this in any case. The idea of an AUSTRALIA.AU portal is the DNS equivalent of a tautology if my grammar serves me well. Why not just AU.AU? DNS logic would dictate that this should be just AU ( to clarify - the www application: HTTP://AU ) which puts it into perspective. An all together too powerful and important address and not one which should be granted. The only thing that would remain is that if geographical placenames are catered for in a new set of 2LDs. Then the restriction on COM.AU will not make sense any longer. Otherwise why not just allow use of .COM.AU by the interested parties in .PLACENAME.AU In other words, why create a new 2LD for names disallowed in another 2LD? It's like having two barrels, one for red apples and another for green bananas. And then finding that you also have green apples to sort. There may not be many, but you can't just throw out the green apples. Especially when some green apples know phrases like "restraint of trade". ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .CONF.AU The most reasonable application of all as far as I can judge. Worries about the permanence of the domains can be simply sorted with a maximum registration period of one year at a time, and a limit of exactly one .CONF.AU domain per entity. If the domain was truly desired again then it could be re-registered. It is highly unlikely that the demand for domains would outstrip supply. Some sort of trademark/business check could be performed allowing or disallowing as common sense would dictate. A conference that had a registered business name for that conference would be allowed A conference that had not registered a business name would be allowed providing there was no existing Australian business or Australian trademark. Any name ownership claims would be easily resolved if the conference did not have a business under, or fair claim on, that name. One potentially turbulent example: A family reunion of the McDonald clan may wish to register MCDONALDS.CONF.AU to publicise their reunion. The claim is legitimate but of course there are existing trademarks etc. etc. It is not a problem however unless McDonalds Australia actually wanted that domain to specifically use for a conference. This, again, is why there are seperate 2LDs in the first place. In any case, if things got nasty the McDonald clan could settle for MCDONALDREUNION.CONF.AU couldn't they? And undoubtedly any corporation that big would work their way around and through any legislation that stopped them registering it first anyway. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .UNI.AU and .UNIVERSITY.AU Although generally harmless, being a closed proposal for the benefit of merely 50 entities, this would appear to be 2LD clutter, and besides this the .EDU.AU space is hardly full. The idea of a UNIVERSITY.AU portal to universities could easily be achieved with a UNIVERSITY.EDU.AU portal instead. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .RESEARCH.AU If the DNS is used as it should be, then this would seem to be unnecessary. Research exists around education institutions and private companies. All of which can fall into other sparsely populated 2LDs. The only situation within which this would be tolerable would be if .CSIRO.AU was replaced with a .RES.AU or similar. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .MED.AU and .LAW.AU Start with these and it won't stop. .ARCH.AU .BUILDER.AU .PLUMBER.AU .WEB.AU ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * .CATHOLIC.AU Wholly inappropriate use of the DNS. Nothing that could be done with .CATHOLIC.AU couldn't be done with .CATHOLIC.ORG.AU - which is registered to the proposers of this 2LD already. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- * Bonus gripe!!! ;) * Two letter domain names coinciding with country domains We have a set of (seemingly hastily devised) rules that seem to contradict what is actually occurring on the net. I understand the reasoning of disallowing two letter domains but the horse has bolted. Globally, the opportunists have already set up shop and the only thing rules like this do now is disallow REAL companies from registering legitimate domains. Opportunists? Well..... There still remains AU.COM (registered by Net Registry - an AUDA accredited registrar) where at last check ORG.AU.COM and ID.AU.COM were still available for registration, COM.AU.COM and NET.AU.COM long gone. Anyone could register ORG.AU.COM and successfully steal a lot of the WWW traffic aimed at many legitimate ORG.AU websites. I won't say how though, that's up to people to work out themselves ;) AU.NET is registered by our old friend Telstra. Although seemingly not for exploitative purposes. How can AUDA impose these restrictions when they do not adhere to them themselves? ID.AU????? Indonesia.Australia????? If there was a time to fix this, surely it was last July? ---------------------------- I hope these comments come in use, if not practically, at least for some amusement. Regards, Sam Bauers -- Sam Bauers Faculty website coordinator College of Fine Arts - UNSW --