From: Chas Cleland Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2004 11:41 AM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Subject: Community Geographic 2LDs - submission I wish to first congratulate auDA in agreeing to create the eight new second level domains (2LDs) for Australian states and territories and for these to be reserved for 'community portals'. We pray for both auDA and NRG to receive 'wisdom' in implementing and managing this domain name space. The whole ideal of the town.state/territory.au name space is brilliant in its conception. It 'potentially' provides uniformity in sourcing information from the various towns/cities within Australia provided these portals are operated and managed professionally and in an enterprising manner, providing a professional presentation, display a genuine 'community spirit' and are not subjected to government/political constraints or interference. As commercial web developers establish over 10 years, we have developed our own 'city/town' portals in the past. One of these was sold to Local Government. I call these 'city/town' portals because they were commercially owned and operated and therefore not truly owned and managed by the community or a community organisation. Each of these have been profitable for the business because of the way they were managed, built and user focused. However they were not necessarily the ideal. I wish to submit a number of suggestions regarding the 'Domain Policy Rules and Guidelines'. Support information/reasons behind these suggestions are included further below. Suggestions; 1. Submissions to have a community web portal recognised in the new 2LD name space should not be reliant upon that portal entity receiving any level of direct government funding prior to the establishment of the site and its entity. This will instead reinforce the inability of the portal's entity to develop a likely sustainable product. Instead the portal must demonstrate that it can financially support itself without any seed funding from Government and in the ongoing process, survive through community and/or commercial funding plus revenue streams it has developed itself. However government may provide in kind support through the use of office space, etc. 2. A fully operational community portal (albeit with minimal content) should first be made available publicly before a new 2LD is provided. The new 2LDs should not be made available to 'promised' or 'upcoming' community portals. The demonstration portal can be accommodated within another name space before being granted a new 2LD domain name. eg: www.myisp.com.au/~myportal/ 3. All commercial 'city/town/community' portals operating within the locality should by default receive at minimum a link to that portal from the new 'local' 2LD community portal. 4. Local Government may have governance of the community but should not be provided with the default right to dictate what happens on the web. Just as local Government does not dictate to local community radio stations or community newspapers, so to should it not dictate to community Internet media. 5. Local Government should not be regarded as being the default instigator in community web site development. This is best left to the community to initiate. 6. Local Government should not be provided with the power to become the definitive body to initiate community web products. 7. When Local Government and other parties submit proposals for the development of a community web portal, that a Local Government submission not be weighted in its favour simply because it has come from Local Government. That is, all submissions should be treated solely on their business plan and demonstration portal site including consideration of the 'people' behind the plan. 8. Recognition be given to the skills, experience, commitment, enthusiasm and background of the people who are chosen to become the initial management committee/board of the chosen entity operating their local portal as opposed to present 'positions' of those people. This means 'IT Manager - ABC City Council' will mean nothing and have no relevance to the possible success of the portal entity. This 'position title' on its own does not portray this person's enthusiasm, commitment and skills he/she will offer the ABC community portal. 9. Given 'people' are more important that 'positions' when it comes to managing and operating any enterprise, that the application form used to apply for a new 2LD include a list of individuals within a local management group along with x 2 written references and x 2 referees. Support information: We have stood back over the years and witnessed other 'community' portals being developed where we judged the business plan to be flawed in the first place and could see that over time, 'this will not be sustainable'. We have also witnessed much the same happening again when a number of Local Government authorities have taken it upon themselves to orchestra and manage community portal projects. In one case, Local Government openly competed against an already successful commercial entity using State Government money. In other cases, we have witnessed Local Government doing an excellent job of 'facilitating' portal projects by using resources already available within their local community, working with the people and placing their seal of approval on the project. The point I wish to make here is that I would hope Local Government does not gain 'blanket approval' to coordinate or be seen as the natural leaders/facilitators for establishment of 2LD sites and entities. Not all local government authorities are equal! There are cases of local government wishing to 'control the web' in their local community and having agendas of their own where they choose to use the web to 'further their own cause'. eg: 'let's develop a community web project where we can gain this funding and place a number of unemployed youth into a training course, develop a community web site and covertly use that money to prop up our Youth Centre'. The 'best people' will make each local community portal a sustainable success - not 'authority' necessarily. Chas Cleland