I think we have to be careful in pooling geographic and generic names into 
the same bucket.

Whilst it may be easier to consider geographic names as a saleable asset I 
cannot forsee any real public good coming from their sale.

Ian and I differ considerably on the probable structure required to 
administer such an asset.

  I am in no way in favor of the geographic names being issued for the 
exclusive right of any private enterprise, they are indeed IMHO a public 
asset and should be administered by the appropriate body.

I put a proposal early on into the panel and we discussed it at length, I 
will abbreviate it and post it up for public comment.

In short it is not dissimilar to the ideas presented earlier on trying to 
build an intuitive addressing system within the dns structure. It bypasses 
the firm and biz type arguments and utilises what scaleability is inherit 
in the dns as we know it.

  basically it is whatever§town.state.country with mail administrated by a 
body like the post office and a "dont publish" paradigm utilised for the web.

and yes, its a directory and has the mandatory web catalogue

  www.town.state.country/whatever

Once again I cannot for the life of think of a "commercial" body that i 
would trust with such an asset. Publicly administration of an intuitive and 
consistent system would be the only way that I could see it operating fairly.

We have been trailing geographic domain name systems for 3 years in 
Gippsland and this is what we have learnt.

<snip>
> >
> > I'm also curious about enforcing interoperability between whoever
> > runs say, the geographic DNS names.
> >
> > How will they be allocated?

<snip>


>The Panel considered a number of methods of allocation of generic and
>geographic domain name licences having regard to the rationale for
>sustaining the existing policy of prohibition.

<snip>
<abreviate>
>The Panel noted that the following methods of allocation might be used.
>
>- First come, first served:
>- Lotteries:
>- Tenders:
>- Auctions:

</avbreviate>

Ian has forgotten to mention the option of community or commercially 
neutral allocation.

Ron.

(also on the Panel)




> > What will stop a large company or group of companies monopolising them?
> > How will the hyperlinking between these sites work if they're controlled
>by different companies?
>
>ACCC powers, competition from resellers of namespace, rights of access
>included in special licences, etc.  Details to be worked out in a study
>scoping the opportunity imo.  (Similar arrangements developed around
>telecommunciations industry over last decade.)
>
> > You are assuming that enough zones exist to cover people's choices.
> > Well, I'll counter that the DNS will become a highly complex web
> > if you want to use it effectively as a directory. Sure, you'll make
> > money, but trying to administer something that complex and keep
> > everything consistent will be ..well, an interesting challenge.
> > Certainly more challenging than running a straight DNS registry.
>
>Fair point.
>
>The key  issue as I see it is how do we relax the current policy of
>prohibition of geographic and generic name licences in the .com.au domain,
>in a fair and equitable manner considering the view that geographic and
>generic names are gateways to e-commerce and public assets (hence we give
>licences) to be managed in the public interest.
>
>In this regard the Second Reading Speech to the Telecommunications
>Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is relevant imo - see ENDNOTE below.
>
>*** I'm offline for most of the day, so I can't contribute to any debate
>till late pm ***
>
>
>Ian Johnston
>Member of the Name Policy Advisory Panel
>Member of the Competition Model Advisory Panel
>
>
>Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
>Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Limited (SETEL)
>PO Box 58   Jamison   ACT   2614   Australia
>02 6253 0869 (B)   02 6251 7835 (F)   0413 990 112 (M)
>www.setel.com.au  mailto:ian.johnston&#167;setel.com.au
>
>SETEL is a national association advancing and representing
>the interests of Australian small businesses as consumers of
>telecommunications and electronic commerce.
>
>~~~~~~~~~
>ENDNOTE
>
>Second Reading Speech to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill
>2000
>(accessible from the link "Current Bills (by Title)" at
><http://www.aph.gov.au/legis.htm> (Accessed 23 November 2000)
>
>The speech read as follows-
>
>This bill reinforces the Government's powers to safeguard the public
>interest in the management of electronic addressing services, such as
>Internet domain names.
>
>Electronic addressing services have become a crucial element of national
>infrastructure. The registration of a domain name is now a gateway to
>e-commerce for many Australian businesses, and crucial to the branding of an
>online presence.
>
>As these services are a public asset, it is important that they are managed
>in the public interest. The absence of an appropriate competitive
>environ-ment, adequate consumer safeguards, or technical competence and
>efficiency could have negative flow-on effects for the development of the
>infor-mation economy in Australia.
>
>For this reason, the Government has developed this bill to clarify the
>powers of the Australian Communications Authority (the ACA) and the
>Australian Competition and Consumer Commis-sion (the ACCC) in relation to
>electronic add-ressing services.
>
>The bill has two elements: firstly, a clarification of existing provisions
>in the Telecommunications Act 1997 for the ACA to declare a "manager of
>electronic addressing", and for the ACA and the ACCC to subsequently give
>directions to that manager; and secondly, a new mechanism in the Australian
>Communications Authority Act 1997 for the ACA to undertake the management of
>electronic addressing services, on the instruction of the Minister for
>Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
>
>Under the first measure, the ACA could determine that the service is being
>managed in an unsatisfactory manner, or the ACCC could determine that a
>manager of an electronic addressing service is not promoting adequate levels
>of competition or consumer protection. In either case, the ACA would be able
>to declare this manager under section 474 of the Telecommunic-ations Act
>1997, and either the ACA or the ACCC could then issue legally binding
>directions to rectify these problems.
>
>Under the second measure, the Minister will be able to instruct the ACA to
>assume direct respon-sibility for electronic addressing services, including
>domain names. The amendments will allow the ACA to recover its costs of
>managing the service. This mechanism will serve as a safety net, for use in
>the event that a self-regulatory body at some time in the future proves
>incapable of managing an electronic addressing service in the public
>interest.
>
>While the Government continues to promote responsible self-regulatory
>management struc-tures for electronic addressing services in Australia, it
>is important that these clear backstop provisions are in place in case
>serious problems arise.
>
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>358 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.


Ron Ipsen,
Managing Director,
Gippsland Internet Pty Ltd
Ph: 61 3 51 276543  Fax: 61 3 51 262020
Mob 0418-512-959
Project Manager,
Gippsland Community Network,

http://www.comu.net.au - Gippslands Community Network
http://www.gips.com.au - bringing Gippsland business online.
http://bi.gips.com.au/neighborhoods -regional community publishing
http://www.jet-trek.com - Doo'n it for the kids