But the auDA derives its income from the Registrars... therefore it is
in the interests of auDA to create new 2ld's for the Registrars to have
access to.  Because when the Registrars profit, so does auDA.

Who brought up the idea of new 2ld's? auDA... will the Registrars
support it? of course they will..

...Skeeve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Drill - Nexsta [mailto:marty§nexsta.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] New 2LD Proposals (to date)
> 
> 
> auDA is the organisation which makes the decisions about new 2LDs, not
> the Registrars.  I think that it would be remiss to suggest that
> Registrars want to release new 2LDs in a market that has just had a
> 'new' 2LD released, id.au. the introduction of further 2LD 
> may actually
> decrease 'profits' of Registrars. New 2LD will  not have the value of
> .com.au and would therefore be cheaper. Check out who is actually
> putting forward the suggestions for new 2LDs.
> 
> I think it will be a while off before new 2LDs are introduced. To be
> honest, I am against the dilution of the .au space and as a result we
> will not be putting forward suggestions for new 2LDs. Let the 
> community
> decide, not the registrars.
> 
> That said, I think we will see the introduction of new 2LDs at some
> point. I concur, if they are to be added, then they must have 
> a reason.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marty
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:saliya§hinet.net.au] 
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2002 11:40 AM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] New 2LD Proposals (to date)
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> 
> > Well, I think your opinion is wrong.
> > 
> > Companies and organisations are already confused enough about which
> 2ld
> > to join (org vs asn, com vs net (or both)), but adding new ones....
> what
> > is that actually supposed to achieve?
> 
> Skeeve,
> 
> This, of course, (while being a *very good* point :) has absolutely
> nothing to do with the relative ease (or difficulty) of locating
> information on the Internet - which is what i was referring to in your
> post (see below). 
> 
> Adding more searched resources complicates searches; adding 
> more domains
> (without increasing searched resources) does not.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I don't really like the idea of new 2LDs; 
> and one of
> the reasons that I don't is the point you made above. That's not the
> same
> point as below, though :) Interestingly, the above point is *exactly*
> the
> reason that registrars like the idea of new 2LDs.
> 
> IMO there's no benefit in adding names for its their own sake.
> 
> I think that there *are* benefits to adding new 2LDs; but that those
> benefits are not the benefits that are being bandied about. 
> For example
> 'po.au' is a short, easy-to-remember name that would 
> instantly open up a
> whole field of new three-and-four letter domain names to entities.
> 
> > > like .web.au
> > > > .shop.au .music.au .tourism.au .church.au .club.au tm.au ? 
> > > They simply
> > > > are not needed and only dilute the usefulness of the web for
> finding
> > > > information.
> > > 
> > > Skeeve,
> > > 
> > > Apart from the additional (IMO, negligible) load on DNS servers;
> more
> > > varied domain names will make absolutely no different to the
> relative
> > > difficulty of finding resources using the appropriate search
> engines.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Saliya
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ---
> 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.  (324 subscribers.)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> 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.  (324 subscribers.)
>