Second Level Domains Policy Review Submission

From:		David McKinley
Received:	10 November 2003


1.
Q:  Are the twelve second level domains still appropriate for their communities 
of interest? 
A: No.
.maori and .geek should never have got the go-ahead.


2.
Q: Should any of the open 2LDs be moderated? (.ac, .co, .gen, .geek, .maori, 
.net, .org, .school)
A: yes
comments: The less open 2LDs the better, open 2LDs weaken the name space, we 
have seen it happen time and time again where name space devalued by short 
sighted registries looking to capitalise on name speculators etc. It is 
happening in the 2LD name space of .maori today, the DNC has a responsibility 
to protect the name space and lessen the brand value.

.ac and .school should be moderated and if we are going to keep .maori then 
that too should be moderated.

3.
Q: Is there any need for the rationalisation of the current 2LDs? 
A: Yes. Remove .geek and .maori 

.iwi is the correct representation of iwi interests in New Zealand and 
should not disappear, I would expect this 3LD to contain less than 100 names 
in the name space.


    3.1
    Q: If so, what process should be used for the removal or closing of 
       existing 2LDs?:
    A: Take no more registrations or renewals.
    
    3.2
    Q:  Should any such process be included in the 2LD policy?:
    A: Yes
 
4.
Q: What criteria (types of criteria and specific examples) should be applied 
to the creation of new 2LDs?
A: 

5.
Q: Is the current process for creating new 2LDs too simple, too complex or 
about right? 
A: 
comments: 



6.
Q:  How much, if anything, should an application for the creation of a new 
2LD cost? 
A: 

7.
Q: Who, if anyone, should be able to block the creation of new 2LDs? If so, 
why and how? 
A: 

8.
Q: Should there be different criteria or processes for the creation of 
moderated as opposed to open Second Level Domains? 
A: 

9.
Q: Is the level of public input in the process adequate; excessive; or 
inadequate?
A: 
comments: 

10.
Q: Are the methods currently used to seek public input (submissions; 
discussion period; straw poll) the best available, or would you suggest 
other/additional methods? 
A: 

11.
Q: Do you think direct public registrations should be accepted at the second 
level?  
A: 

	11.1
	Q: Why?  What are the advantages or disadvantages of such an 
           approach?
	A: 

12.
Q: If direct registrations are allowed at the second level, what kinds of 
transition arrangements would need to be put in place for existing third 
level registrants? 
A: 

13.
Q: What is the best way to deal with any conflicts between existing third level 
registrants if the second level is opened? 
A: 

14.
Q: Should registration fees be different (higher/lower) for Second Level domain 
registrations if they are opened directly to the public?
A: 

15.
Q: Are there other options around the future of the Second Level that the 
working group should consider? 
A: 

16.
Q: Are there any other issues you think the Working Group needs to consider 
in the course of the review? 
A: