2LD Policy Review - Proposed New Policy Submission

From:		Rick Shera
Received:	2 March 2004


Given the makeup of the WG, reaching consensus on a draft policy must have 
been "interesting" and they are to be commended for their output.

I have only two comments:

1.  Acknowledging that the possible process definition is to be consulted on 
again once the policy has been finalised, can I foreshadow that whilst the 
idea of "pre-registration" as an alternative to the current straw vote has 
appeal, care would need to be taken in making sure that prospective potential 
registrants were not confused/mislead.  I expect that it would be necessary 
to take potential registration fees from such potential registrants as a means 
of making sure that the pre-registration was legitimate.  This then raises the 
question of what happens to those funds pending the 2ld being accepted for 
activation and, more particularly, how they are refunded if interest is so 
low that the 2ld is rejected. Personally, given that removal of the direct 
contact between the registry and registrants was one of the drivers for 
creation of the SRS, I would prefer this to remain a function of .nz registrars 
with the potential fees perhaps channelled to a DNC trust account.  Upon the 
2ld being rejected the potential fee would be returned to the registrar for 
refund to the potential registrant.  To somehow interpose the registry or the 
DNC's office in this process in taking funds directly from potential 
registrants would be wrong in my view.  Otherwise, I think that the 
pre-registration seems a good solution although I would prefer that it be 
named something else to avoid the confusion element.

2.  I am pleased to see paragraph 5.6.5, which states:

"Represent a new group of potential registrants in such a manner that existing 
registrants are not forced into defensive registrations."

However, I do not think that this goes far enough.  For a start no registrant 
will be "forced" into a defensive registration.  That may well be advisable but 
there is no element of compulsion.  Secondly, given that we do not have an 
alternative dispute resolution procedure for .nz (despite efforts to move in 
that direction) and no sunrise or other similar process is suggested (thank 
goodness!), avoiding imposing *any* need for defensive registration must, in my 
view, be a fundamental consideration.  Despite predictions to the contrary, 
cybersquatting is not disappearing and we need to be alert to creating any 
situation which might create a new opportunity for this.  Therefore, in my view, 
the policy should say something along the lines of:

"Represent a new group of potential registrants in such a manner that [a] 
opportunities for cybersquatting (in any of its forms) or general trademark 
infringement/passing off are not increased; and [b] there is no prospect of 
existing registrants needing to obtain defensive registrations."