From: Mark Tearle 
Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 3:22 AM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Fourth Consultation on new 2LDs


>    Interim Report principles
>    The Panel's Interim Report set out a number of principles, to which it
>    is now bound both through its own processes and through the
>    endorsement of the auDA Board. These include:
>      * There is a preference for open 2LDs which permit diversity rather
>        than closed 2LDs which confer advantage to a single organisation
>        or individual.
>      * Having more 2LDs does not in itself undermine sustainability. One
>        issue is how far we want to drill down into sub-groups, in
>        addition to very broad general categories, but in general
>        sustainability is a different issue to size and specificity.
>      * Having more 2LDs does require financial and other support in order
>        to be viable and sustainable, so costs are an issue both set-up
>        costs and running costs.
>      * User demand at all levels is important in determining the
>        sustainability of a new 2LD.
>      * The needs of users are diverse and the appropriateness of a name
>        strategy should be primarily determined by users a clear statement
>        of need from an informed user or community is hard to overturn,
>        given the market-driven approach taken by auDA. Whether needs are
>        well-served is primarily for users to decide.

The panel in future recommendations to the auDA board should determine metrics 
and methods on how to assess this for existing 2LDs and new 2LDs.  Statistics 
based solely on the number of registrants in a 2LD will not paint an accurate 
picture.

>      * Support must exist widely - from peak organizations, prospective
>        registrants, and ordinary end users. The Panel has generally felt
>        that evidence which is limited to a governing body is too 
> limited.

A proforma proposal for future new 2LD proposals would help here. (for both 
proponents of new 2LDs and the panel)  The shortlisted proposals below would 
make good starting points for future efforts.

>    Draft Recommendations
>
>    Shortlisted proposals
>    The Panel's draft recommendations on the four shortlisted proposals
>    are set out below.
>      * catholic.au - Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference
>        The Panel is in unanimous agreement that the proposal should not
>        be recommended, because it conflicts with the basic policy
>        principle that a 2LD should not be created for a single
>        organisation. The Australian DNS is built upon the concept of
>        broad generic 2LDs, and the proposal does not accord with that
>        fundamental policy.
>        The Panel notes that the proposal is well documented and strongly
>        argued, with a great deal of supporting information. It rates well
>        against the selection criteria, although the Panel queries the
>        depth of support amongst the proposed user community and the
>        perceived inadequacy of org.au to meet the needs of the community.
>        The Panel suggests that the proposal might be acceptable if it was
>        reframed as an open 2LD, should an open 2LD meet the needs and
>        intentions of the proponents. This comment is not intended to
>        raise expectations that such a proposal would be automatically
>        accepted; it would need to be evaluated separately. The Panel
>        notes that no international precedent exists for this type of
>        domain and it would constitute a radical innovation in the DNS.

My personal opinion here is that for any proposal here to be successful it 
would also have to suggest options for those of alternative faiths and religions.

>      * conf.au
>        The Panel is in unanimous agreement that the proposal to retain
>        this existing 2LD should be recommended.
>        The Panel notes that auDA would need to undertake further
>        consultation to develop suitable eligibility and allocation
>        criteria for the 2LD, and that a marketing campaign would be
>        useful in promoting its relevance among intended users.

I am delighted at this; and wish to continue to assist the panel and auDA in 
any manner possible.

>      * uni.au/university.au
>        A majority of the Panel agrees that the proposal should not be
>        recommended, because of concerns about setting objective
>        eligibility criteria and because the Panel feels that there was
>        not a compelling case for the 2LD to be closed. Some Panel members
>        support the proposal as a closed 2LD but with open 2LD attributes
>        (eg. objective eligibility criteria). Several Panel members do not
>        support the proposal at all (as a closed or open 2LD), because
>        they feel it has not been demonstrated that user needs are not
>        already well served by edu.au.
>        The Panel notes that the proposal is well-argued, and the AVCC
>        also provided a second submission in response to the Panels first
>        consultation document, addressing the issues raised. A majority of
>        the Panel agree that the proposal rates well against the selection
>        criteria.
>        The Panel suggests that the proposal might be acceptable if it was
>        reframed as an open 2LD, should an open 2LD meet the needs and
>        intentions of the proponents. This comment is not intended to
>        raise expectations that such a proposal would be automatically
>        accepted; it would need to be evaluated separately.

Working in the higher education sector myself, speaking for myself and not my 
employer - observing the uses of domain names within my institution the creation 
of additional domain names (>1) for any host/service achieves only very marginal 
improvements in usefulness and usability of the DNS.  Given the stability of the 
sector I don't see that this would add much value; I think efforts would be better 
served in revising and updating the edu.au policy to reflect better the structure 
of education in Australia as a whole.



END
-- 
Mark Tearle