At 09:45 23/06/98 +1000, you wrote:
>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.

Yes, a great deal. 

I was heavily involved in setting up NOMINET and worked closely with Dr
Willie Black and other domain industry players in this process.

I have a lot of faith in the model which has a number of distinct
advantages over a for-profit entity at the centre. I am also very familiar
with the reactions of the industry to the model as it developed- both
positive and negative, as well as some of the pitfalls that arose through
the implementation of the new system in the UK.

I would be more than happy to share my experiences of NOMINET and the UK
and French domain registration industries with this list, but wonder if
there isn't a face-to-face opportunity as I'm not sure where to start.
Perhaps list members may wish to ask specific questions to avoid my perhaps
irrelevant ramblings.

I was involved with NOMINET as I was Managing Director of NetBenefit, the
UK's largest domain name registrar during that period.

Larry Bloch

>
>
>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
>
>---
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns§waia.asn.au to be removed.
> 
_____________________________________________

Larry Bloch                   
Chief Executive Officer       
NetRegistry Pty Limited       
email:  larry§netregistry.au.com
Office: +61-(0)2-9555 6299
Fax:    +61-(0)2-9555 5808

http://www.netregistry.au.com
Domain House, PO Box 2088, Sydney, NSW 1043
_____________________________________________