This is at variance with the previous positions espoused by Melbourne-IT
(or whatever their new name is), and while I personally agree with much
of what you are saying, the issue of the tension between a commercially
viable registration process operated by a single provider as against the
model of some form of qualification for multiple commercially competing
providers is a familiar and well travelled path. The problem here is
that there are no clean answers so far to this tension between the
two modelss, nor a clear understanding of how to make the competing
structure work cleanly. I had the UK Nominet model thrown at me a
few days ago as a potential solution - anyone got any comments on
Nominet.


Geoff

(and today's catchcry is: death to paragraph breaks!)

At 09:26 23/06/98 +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
>
>
>here's my take. 
>
>	1) public interest principles predominate
>	2) documented policy: catch-up time for existing domains
>	3) principle of least suprise in changes
>	4) whats the hurry to make new domains? this is NOT a rush job
>	5) consultative yes. elected? not neccessarily. 
>	6) stakeholders is a hard one. see 1)
>
>2LD
>	we don't need more. we need sanity about what we have. if we do
>	need more, we need time to decide how, and why
>
>	separation of powers vital. authority and operation can vest in
>	different places.
>
>	FCFS issues?
>
>other interesting points
>
>	backfill with the minimum legislative power required.
>	indemnity for 'best effort' procedures
>	respect other jurisdiction in naming rights
>
>	good to align with other ISO code practices, and the non-ISO top level
>	but not 100%: depends on circumstances.
>
>	fund from revenues of commercial domains. has to be financially
>	viable, should NOT be a revenue raiser, or a for-profit activity
>	at the immediate .AU or 2LD level.
>
>-George
>
>---
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns§waia.asn.au to be removed.
> 

---

Geoff Huston
Internet Technology, Telstra

  gih§telstra.net       http://www.telstra.net/gih