I agree re infrastructure, it is necessary for any non-profit
organisation to build infrastructure. We must remember that auDA is the
industry body, our industry. Ie they represent the Australian Internet
and its users.

auDA have a budget in place, once that budget is achieved, any remaining
revenue will be used to decrease the cost of domain names. So no, they
are not in the business of raising revenue to horde craploads of cash
for a rainy day.

I think this position is very clear and answers the question you have
raised. auDA have made this very clear at their seminars across capital
cities in the last month.

There is a balance and without sounding like the auDA defender, I think
that they have achieved it. auDA's site seems to be down at the moment,
though I suggest that their budget info may be available somewhere on
the site, otherwise if you contact them directly, Chris may be
forthcoming with the info he has already made available verbally.

>
I would prefer to know that, and it to plainly be obvious through
policies, and decisions, that auDA were primarily interested in the well
being of the .au namespace, rather than assisting Registrars make a
profit, and in-turn make themselves more 'viable'?.


Cheers

Marty

-----Original Message-----
From: Skeeve Stevens [mailto:skeeve§skeeve.org] 
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2002 12:25 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] New 2LD Proposals (to date)

I used to work for a non-profit... they had over 100 million turn over a
year... 

Non-profits have infrastructure to build as well... you can't say auDA
aren't interested in making their balances sheets look better (surplus)
so they can improve their infrastructure..

While I don't believe there is any conspiracy either, every person
business and organisation have a motive for what they do... including
auDA... 

I would prefer to know that, and it to plainly be obvious through
policies, and decisions, that auDA were primarily interested in the well
being of the .au namespace, rather than assisting Registrars make a
profit, and in-turn make themselves more 'viable'?.

...Skeeve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Drill - Nexsta [mailto:marty§nexsta.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] New 2LD Proposals (to date)
> 
> 
> I will leave this to auDA to respond. Though I do know that they are a
> non-profit organisation
> 
> The Registrars, auDa and AusRegistry are focusing on building a better
> DNS for all of us. There is no conspiracy going on. 
> 
> Lets focus on the new competitive market rather than what might be.
> 
> Understand where you are coming from, though I think this conversation
> will still end up with 'Registrars and auDA are ripping the 
> public off'.
> Frankly I disagree
> 
> Time will tell
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Skeeve Stevens [mailto:skeeve§skeeve.org] 
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2002 12:00 PM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] New 2LD Proposals (to date)
> 
> 
> 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.)
> > 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> 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.)
>