>That would be a shame. There is no justification for such fees on
>hostnames past the 2LD level.

- there isn't?? So there are no costs involved in setting up and maintaining
sub-domains?  Servers are free? Staff don't need to be paid?


>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
>From: "Dassa" <dassa&#167;dhs.org>
>To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:19:42 +1000
>Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au
>
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Ian Smith [mailto:smithi&#167;nimnet.asn.au] 
>|> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:49 PM
>|> To: Dassa
>|> Cc: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
>|> Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au
>|> 
>|> 
>|> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Dassa wrote:
>|> 
>|>  > |> -----Original Message-----
>|>  > |> From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:jon&#167;jonlawrence.com] 
>|> [..]
>|>  > |> so who gets magpies.footy.au?
>|> 
>|> Sounds silly, but in fact this question typifies the whole madness
>that
>|> new 2LDs in .au would promulgate, especially amongst those again
>pushing
>|> for such 'open slather' 2LDs, who appear not to have read the prior
>|> discussions and conclusions on this over the years at all.
>
>True.  But it is something that can not be disregarded, it must be dealt
>with.
>
>|>  > |> I tend to agree with you that creating new 2LDs adds very
>little value to
>|>  > |> the .au domain space.  Lets give id.au a go and see how it
>fares...much
>|>  > |> the same as the recently released me.uk I suspect (ie noone
>wants
>|>  > them).
>|> 
>|> I agree with Jon and several other people who've said 
>|> something similar.
>|> 
>|>  > <SNIP>
>|>  > 
>|>  > I disagree.  There is a need for some additional 2LD's.
>|> 
>|> What evidence supports this claim?
>
>I haven't done major research and can not point you to statistics.  I
>can only state my opinion on talking to people in the community.  Far as
>I know, there has not been any research with this question in mind.  So
>the question is much like asking if we really need better living
>conditions.
>
>|>  > Not to put
>|>  > anything against id.au, I think having some geographical names
>under
>|>  > (state).au at a fixed cost would be beneficial and meet some
>consumer
>|>  > demand.
>|> 
>|> Where is any such consumer demand illustrated?  (apart from 
>|> proponents)
>
>For one in the fact under gov.au there is a thriving namespace based on
>geographical location.  Obviously if AuDA is considering expanding the
>namespace, they consider there is a consumer demand to do so.  You may
>do better to direct this question to them.
>
>|>  > What I don't want to see is hostnames under such 2LD's costing
>|>  > the same sort of price as *.com.au hostnames.  I would like to see
>a
>|>  > reasonable price charged for (city).(state).au and a fixed price
>of say
>|>  > $5AUD a year on any sub-domains under them as a condition of
>registration.
>|> 
>|> More to the point, who gets to 'own' some city/town/village under
>this
>|> proposal?  How will they then decide who may 'licence' subdomains,
>and
>|> under what criteria?  (Hint: all this has been covered by prior
>panels)
>
>Not all of it.  The criteria for registrations would need to be set
>first and then the criteria for any organisation to manage the
>additional namespaces would need to be defined to meet the criteria.
> 
>|> Since these would not be commercial operations (covered by com.au or
>|> perhaps .net.au), nor associations and clubs (.asn.au), nor other
>|> non-profits (.org.au), nor individuals (.id.au, especially in its
>|> recently expanded form), who and what exactly would they be to serve?
>
>Who said they wouldn't be commercial operations?  I see such a namespace
>as serving all, commercial, non-commercial and individual.
>
>|> There appears to be no way that AuDA is going to demand less than $11
>as
>|> its slice of any domain names registered in Australia henceforth, as
>|> this is as close as the previously free .org.au domains come.
>
>That would be a shame.  There is no justification for such fees on
>hostnames past the 2LD level.
>
>|>  > The (city) level should have strict criteria for the body
>|>  > acting as the registry on the 3LD.  For instance the body should
>offer
>|>  > registrations in a particular format that would be consistant
>across all
>|>  > the 3LD's and at a set price.
>|> 
>|> The only bodies that could get district.state.au would be local
>councils
>|> and the like.  Are these appropriate bodies to become domain
>allocators,
>|> or perhaps salespeople, within their stated brief?  I don't think so.
>
>The idea would be to set the criteria for the operation of the registry
>bodies and anyone who can provide the service would be free to apply.
>It does not have to be limited to local councils or existing bodies.
>
>|>  > Will most likely expand on this in a submission to AuDA.
>|> 
>|> I guess you'll have researched existing such proposals such as the
>'one
>|> city one site' (as if!) proposal already hoping to centralise control
>of
>|> communities' resources under government bureaucracies.  It's a crock.
>
>I'm already aware of this proposal and do not agree with it.  My main
>point would be to make the namespace appropriate and cheap enough for
>everyone.
>
>|>  > As for other 2LD's, given the use of com.au etc, if the
>geographical
>|>  > names were introduced, there may not be any need to expand in
>other
>|>  > directions for some time.
>|> 
>|> There is no demonstrated need for more .au 2LDs now.  The .com.au
>space
>|> remains close enough to infinite for practical purposes already, and
>|> there's an equal amount of 'spare space' in every other 2L domain.
>
>What I would propose would be an alternative to the .com.au name space
>that would be cheaper and available to everyone.  It would be
>geographically based to allow for a form of directory service being
>built in.
>
>|> This whole exercise can only benefit those trying to sell more
>domains.
>|> People will register domains as needed.  With more 2LDs such as
>.biz.au
>|> we'll see the d-pushers trying to frighten people into registering a
>|> .biz.au for every .com.au or .net.au "before somebody else does";
>it's
>|> purely a scam to let a few mates make more virtually unearned money,
>and
>|> apart from big companies to whom it's pennies, increased 
>|> consumer costs.
>
>If handled correctly it could result in the namespace being opened up to
>more people.  At much reduced pricing.  It is possible for me to
>purchase a com.au hostname and doing something similar from a 3LD level
>up but what I propose is for AuDA to actually control the process and to
>lower costs for consumers.  I want to see the namespace used more
>effectively.  
>
>|> And why would AuDA be pushing such a proposal?  Well, there's that
>$11
>|> per domain fee, so AuDA has a vested interest in growing, not just
>|> managing, the .au namespace.  And perhaps there'll be more 
>|> auction$ ..
>
>It is up to us all to push for lower prices and more consumer benefits.
>
>|> My bet is that the panel will be predominantly filled by people
>already
>|> of the view that we "need" more 2LDs, at least half of which will
>stand
>|> to gain financially by their implementation.  As usual, the 'public
>|> participation' will be a sham, and views contrary to the
>predetermined
>|> outcome will be politely but firmly ignored anyway.
>
>We can but try.
>
>|> Bah, humbug!
>|> 
>|> Cheers, Ian
>
>Sounds like you have given up already.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (311 subscribers.)
>