On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Vic Cinc wrote:

 > from memory 30% of people that responded to the
 > auda survey wanted to register directly in .au.

Could you point out where these survey responses have been published?

Until the details of which survey questions lead to what other questions
and so on are published for evaluation by experts in survey methodology,
showing there are no (even subconscious) 'push survey' techniques being
employed in the survey design, no inferences can be drawn from it/them. 

 > that is called a demand.  auda has a clear charter to address that demand.

As Derek Whitehead pointed out in prior correspondence on this matter,
the survey results are only one factor for consideration by the panel.

 > the mechanics of ensuring that the value of .com.au is preserved or
 > transfered to .au is a separate issue. the Domain Industry
 > Association as put forward a value preservation scheme for opening up
 > .au. no doubt others can be considered. 

You have deemed to grant com.au precedence over all other 2LDs in such
matters; quite a few submissions point out the drawbacks of trying to
determine which of (say) net.au, asn.au, com.au or indeed gov.au should
have precedence in disputes over who might be eligible for 'whatever.au'

 > .au is not a democracy, it is a market.

Chanting this mantra doesn't turn your personal philosophy into a fact.

Providing a market to satisfy a need - the market we already have - is
quite different to inventing new 'needs' toward generating new markets.

 > there is no right nor mandate
 > that any form of majority is required to open .au or that any form of
 > majority can suppress of thwart any demand for direct .au registrations.

I'd commend you to Melbourne IT's submission, in this regard at least.

.au is quite open enough that anyone requiring a domain name for their
activities can register one.  "All the good ones are taken" is as much a
myth regarding domain names as it is regarding prospective partners.

Ian


 > Vic
 > 
 > 
 > Ian Smith [smithi§nimnet.asn.au] wrote:
 > > 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.
 > > 
 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
 >