From: Sam Bauers 
Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 2:41 AM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Public comment - Geographic names restriction .net.au and
.com.au

Hi Jo,

Although it pains me to labour over it again, I welcome the opportunity 
to comment on the topic of geographic name restrictions in .com.au and 
.net.au

As I have previously commented during the new 2LD proposal process, 
with the introduction of the geographic 2LDs, I believe that the 
restriction on the .com.au and .net.au domain spaces should ultimately 
be lifted.

The idea that one or more 2LDs should have their operation impinged 
upon by the requirements of another 2LD is ludicrous. I don't need to 
remind the auDA board of this, but the 2LD hierarchy exists so that 
there is a distinction between entities operating in different 2LDs, 
with different motives implied by the nature of the 2LD.

The fact that "com" stands for commercial seems to be lost on those 
that claim that the restricted place names would be used for commercial 
gain. Of course they would be used for commercial gain, that is what 
the .com.au 2LD is *meant* to be used for. It is more damaging to the 
general understanding of what domain names symbolise to leave this 
restriction in place, than it would be to allow commerce to do what it 
is actually supposed to do within the .com.au space.

The key is education about domain name usage. Abstract concepts are not 
impossible for the public to pick up in general. We understand 
everything from telephone prefixing systems to media content rating 
systems.

Here's an example (because I like re-stating the obvious):
Martin - who lives in Sydney - has two friends, one in Sydney and one 
in Melbourne. By coincidence they both have the same phone number 
"9999-1234". When Martin wants to call his friend in Melbourne, what 
happens?
1. His head explodes.
2. He dials the 8-digit number and repeatedly screams "MELBOURNE 
MELBOURNE MELBOURNE" until he gets through.
3. He dials the 8-digit number and almost without thinking prefixes the 
digits "03".

Here's another example (this one is a bit racy):
Sharon wants to rent a video for her children to watch on a rainy 
Sunday afternoon, the video store has been very busy and she only has 
the choice between two videos. They have completely blank sleeves 
except for the title and the rating. Which video does Sharon choose for 
her children?
1. The Adventures of Bambi (Rated G)
2. The Adventures of Bambi (Rated R)

The geographic name protectionists are shooting themselves in the foot. 
The point of distinction should not be the third-level place name, the 
point of distinction should be the 2LD you reside in. By confusing the 
operation of all 2LDs, the geographic names restriction dilutes the 
usefulness and understanding of the domain name system. The public can 
and will understand the logic behind the DNS when it is made clear to 
them what it's purpose serves. At this stage that purpose is obscured 
by the current policy.

Most of the argument by those wishing to keep the restriction has been 
rhetorical at best. There are many lofty words about protecting names 
for the benefit of the community. But there is no evidence presented 
that those who would seek the .com.au or .net.au names would try to 
unfairly exploit the name of the community. Nor is there any evidence 
given on the part of those seeking protection within the .state.au 
space that they would NOT try to unfairly exploit the name of the 
community. No evidence that is, except their word as a loose group of 
un-elected representatives within that community. I have no doubt 
whatsoever that these groups will in fact give preference to commercial 
interests and force upon their users (as opposed to their customers) a 
view biased towards those they favour due to their custom. This makes 
these entities competitors in a marketplace, rather than benevolent 
service providers. I think these motives are made all the more clear 
when they seek protection from the ravages of on open marketplace that 
they wish to enter.

Alison Norris makes an interesting point that unintentionally supports 
this view. She states that groups she interviewed would rather not go 
through the process of registering a geographic 2LD if they could avoid 
it to get the geographic name they wanted. I think it is telling that 
they do not want to go through the process of becoming legitimately 
aligned with their communities as per the requirements of the new 2LDs. 
Further, Alison Norris' comments quite clearly indicate to me that the 
main interest in the geographic names in .net.au and .com.au would come 
from the same people who are now generally trying to restrict their 
release. Would it be too cynical of me to allege that the OCOS proposal 
was created to circumvent the policy in question, and now that the 
policy is on it's way out, the OCOS crowd are shouting foul? Yes it 
would be cynical, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Regardless of this, I do support the suggestion that the new 2LDs be 
allowed to mature for the sake of the .au DNS in general. I fully 
support the idea of them in principal. Given the rate at which the 
internet evolves, I think two years from launch is more than enough 
time for this to occur.

So, my opinion is that the restriction be removed at a date to be set 
no more than 2 years from the launch of the geographic 2LDs and that an 
information campaign be implemented to ensure that all 2LDs receive 
adequate exposure to enable their users to ensure their own success. 
Success that will primarily rely on each users ability to market 
themselves, regardless of any legislative help they do or do not 
receive from auDA.

Regards
Sam Bauers