From: Nick Chaves 
Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 5:50 AM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Policy review - restriction on geographic names

Hello,

I am responding to the following question:

2. Should the restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au be removed - ie. should 
people be allowed to register geographic names in com.au and net.au? If so, why?

I believe that reserving the registration of geographic names in com.au and net.au for the 
respective city/town/suburb/community to be inappropriate, and feel that this restriction 
should be immediately lifted and/or reformed.

As mentioned in many others' responses, those who own businesses with the same name as a 
"place name" -- any suburb in any state in Australia -- are immediately disadvantaged in 
their efforts to gain an online presence.  On what basis can we assume that the average user 
would be more likely to type in "driver.com.au" (an example given in another response) in 
an effort to reach a community page for a suburb of Darwin (Driver has a population of just 
over 2800 - that's about 0.01% of the entire population of Australia) than in an effort to 
reach a business they know by that name?

The proposed geographic 2LDs solves this problem for personal and business use, in addition 
to creating a better situation for the communities themselves.  What would be done when 
there is a community with the same name in two or more states, such as Armadale, in Victoria 
and WA?  Would www.armadale.com.au be a "portal" with link options to both communities' 
actual sites?  Would wa.armadale.com.au and vic.armadale.com.au designate the correct 
location?  In these cases, the community would either suffer not having a direct link to 
their actual website, or inconsistency with other community's internet homes.  The state-level 
2LDs solves this problem, and gives a consistent solution that provides all the necessary 
information in one web address.  In addition, the user will be able to know that it is an 
official address for that community.

As a web user, I certainly wouldn't be expecting driver.com.au to link me to an obscure (to me) 
location in NT.  If the new system was implemented, however, I would be able to assume that 
driver.nt.au links me to the website for Driver, in NT.  I would then also be able to assume 
that [whatever].com.au would link me to the most appropriate web site in the commercial domain, 
and if the company I was looking for owns that domain I would be able to find them there, 
instead of a server error because the site is "reserved" for a community that might never 
register it.

The exception, as some have mentioned, could be with state names or prominent place names, such 
as queensland.com.au, or newcastle.com.au.  It is possibly more appropriate for a place name 
that is a "household name" to most Australians still be reserved a space in the com.au 2LD.

I hope that the appropriate action will be taken and that with the possible exception of 
prominent names, the outdated policy of reserving a domain for every place name with a postcode 
will be revoked and these domains released to the public commercial and private space, where 
they belong.  If a community still wishes, for whatever reason, to make the commercial 2LD 
their home, they still have that privilege on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Regards,

Nick Chaves



From: Nick Chaves 
Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 9:50 AM
To: Jo Lim
Subject: RE: Policy review - restriction on geographic names


Hi again,

In response to the many accusations that commercial exploitation is the only reason for public 
desire to register any of these names, I would suggest again that this would apply to a few (less 
than 5-10% seems generous enough) place names and not all.  If the restriction is maintained, it 
should be only for those with high interest names (e.g. Newcastle, Fremantle, Queensland, etc.). 
My own interest is in a name that just happens to be both a location in northern Queensland and a 
507-person locality in South Australia, both perfect candidates for the state-level 2LDs.

I do strongly agree that commercial exploitation is likely on "high profile" names.  But this 
should not punish those interested in a place-name domain for a different reason.

Thank you,

Nick Chaves