On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Vic Cinc wrote:

 > You have completely ignored the fact that there is a clear demand for
 > opening up .au, and as such it is incumbent on the policy panel to address that
 > demand.

The only evident 'demand' for direct registrations under .au is by some
of the 23 registrars, some resellers and a few would-be domaineers.

 > The mechanics are a separate issue.
 > 
 > .au is a market not a democracy. There is no implicit right or mandate for
 > the policy panel to consider any arguments for thwarting that demand.

Your demands, that is.  Unless you're still purporting to 'represent'
all those who had chosen your firm to purchase registration services?

 > On the contrary there is an implied mandate for auda to address
 > demand for direct .au registrations as the namespace is there for
 > the benefit of all australians.

The great majority of submissions to the present panel affirm that
direct registrations would not be to the benefit of the australian
community, but only to those few doing the demanding.

 > There was no consultation on opening up state based 2lds, and no
 > democratic process or veto was even contemplated.
 > 
 > This is a clear precedent the policy panels must observe.

You're saying that any past errors must be repeated, for consistency.

There are many other precedents that the panel _may_ observe, including
the precedent of overseeing a stable namespace, and that the .au domain
does not exist to serve only those demanding further windfall profits.

Ian