From: Conrad Canterford [conrad@mail.watersprite.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:25 PM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Subject: Submission on the 2LD proposals Comments on the discussion paper for new 2LDs. This is my personal opinion, and the opinion of my company. On the general 2LDs: I am in support of the discussion paper view on most issues. - Any new 2LD name should be clear and (as much as possible) unambiguous in its meaning. - If a new 2LD is to be permitted, its intent and "market" should be clearly stated. Where it overlaps with a current 2LD it should be a distinct category, and not effectively a duplication of a current 2LD, or an exclusive subset of a current 2LD. - The allocation of a 2LD to a particular professional or special interest organisation (no matter how representative they claim to be) should be avoided - the only exception I might make is where membership of a particular professional body is required in order to practice in that profession. If a 2LD is to be allocated to cover a group represented by a professional body or special interest organisation, the control of the namespace should reside with an independent registrar (effectively making them open domains). We rely on the current registrars to do this already with the current open domains, so I don't see why this should be an issue. - A small number of professional 2LDs for "key" professions may be acceptable, but the risk of cluttering the namespace with dozens of "professional" 2LDs probably outweighs the benefits. I can see a clear case for lawyers and doctors, but what is to stop the principle extending to (for example) builders, architects, teachers, etc? I suspect that the better solution is to restrict the professions to the current .com.au domains and 4LDs under their respective professional associations (for example joebloggslawyer.law.asn.au). The point in the discussion paper about the .museum domain also applies to a 4LD structure. Once the public get used to this structure, it will work just fine. On the specific proposals: .aom.au: While I heartilly approve of the concept, this particular name is obscure - it has no clear meaning. Their intent may perhaps be better achieved if an alternative name was chosen (maybe .xxx.au? :-)). It should be an open domain, for people involved in the production and/or distribution of "adult material". .biz.au: The general argument I have heard for the introduction of the top-level .biz domain was because the most desirable names in the .com namespace had already been registered. I'm assuming that the argument for an Australian one follows the same line. This is pointless! In 12 months time when all the desirable names in .biz|.biz.au have been registered, do we then go and start another one? The reality of the situation is that this exactly duplicates the current .com.au 2LD, and there is absolutely no way to stop the same entity registering the same name in both 2LDs, so it achieves nothing. Arguments that we should keep in line with the top level domains are also silly - the UK don't follow the naming scheme of the top-level domains, and they don't seem to have problems. .catholic.au: The danger with admitting this one would be the subsequent demands for .anglican.au, .uniting.au, .reformedanglican.au, .bhuddist.au, .scientology.au, etc. While I mean no offense to catholics, they aren't so special that they deserve a 2LD when everyone else doesn't. I can see some merit in David Patterson's suggestion for a religion 2LD, but suspect that the process of deciding who should or shouldn't be allowed to register in that domain would be so fraught with trouble as to be more effort than its worth. .club.au: I have been involved in a number of clubs and associations, and I had never heard of the "Australian National Clubs Association". I don't think they're particularly representative of the section of society they claim to represent. In any case, their domain duplicates (and is an exclusive subset of) the .asn.au and/or .org.au domains. A 4LD structure would be more appropriate. .conf.au: I support this domain. It is a unique and separate category. Not all conferences are commercial things, so the .com.au domain doesn't universally apply. Further, there is no obvious alternative to look under if you are trying to find a conference site. I also support the fixed length registration concept, provided that ongoing renewal is permitted and some process exists to ensure that a prior conference does not stop a subsequent conference from using the name (perhaps requiring a year in the name could resolve this?). .emb.au: I also support the concept of this domain, though I think the name leaves a lot to be desired (.embassy.au perhaps?). This should also be an open domain, for the official embassies in Australia. Further, I think that the naming should be restricted to countryname.embassy.au as a general principle. .info.au This domain has potential to be useful, but it would need to be restricted to non-commercial information (commercial information can always be found by brandname.com.au anyway, so it should not be used for this purpose). I do not support the broader view proposed by Michael Pappas that this should become another forum for commercial entities to market their wares - we have the .com.au domain for that. .law.au, .med.au, .pharmacy.au: See my comments above about admitting professional 2LDs. I oppose these on the grounds that they set a precedent that would lead to a confusing proliferation of 2LDs. .research.au, .university.au, .uni.au: As a general principle I support the introduction of these 2LDs as building blocks for 3LDs. Use of "www.university.au" or "www.research.au" is beyond the scope of reasonableness, however, unless the universities are also using the domain. Universities tend to be a different sort of entity to other educational institutions and as such I can see some validity in separating them from the .edu.au 2LD. I'm not sure that the Universities will get any better recognition than they do currently, however. The only objections I would raise are: - .research.au and .university.au are too long. .uni.au works as an abbreviation of university, but I cannot think of an alternative for research. - .research.au SHOULD NOT be restricted to just university research entities. I don't object to the AVCC or a similar body administering it, but it must be open to any research body that makes information available publicly. .retail.au This is an unnecessary duplication of the .com.au domain, and represents an exclusive subset of that domain. My company has never been a member of a retail organisation, despite being engaged in retail for over 4 years. General comments on David Patterson's proposals: I cannot see that the huge proliferation of 2LD's proposed can make the internet an easier place to find things. For example, many business entities won't fall into a simple category. For example, do you look for Westpac (the bank) under .fin.au (they are, after all, a bank), under .ins (they do, after all, provide insurance), under .crp (they are, after all, a large holding company). What else do they do that could mean that they belong in other categories as well? This is just one example. I also cannot agree with the suggested "standard" of 3 letter abbreviations. 3 letters works for some things, but not for others. Appropriate short 2LDs are the go, but not an arbitrary 3 letter rule. Conrad Canterford -- Conrad Canterford (conrad@mail.watersprite.com.au) Water Sprite Pty Ltd | url - http://www.watersprite.com.au/