Second Level Domains Policy Review Submission

From:		Rick Shera
Received:	10 November 2003


1.
Q:  Are the twelve second level domains still appropriate for their communities 
of interest? 
A: Since several of them have ill defined "communities of interest", that is a 
difficult question to answer.  For example, .gen, .org, .net and even .co may 
have had defined communities of interest when established but those have long 
since disappeared and have never really been promoted to registrants.  

2.
Q: Should any of the open 2LDs be moderated? (.ac, .co, .gen, .geek, .maori, 
.net, .org, .school)
A: yes
comments: .school should revert to being just for schools

3.
Q: Is there any need for the rationalisation of the current 2LDs? 
A: No - there is no technical problem and just because a few of them have very 
low numbers - so what - it does not cause any problem whatsoever and, if those 
people registered there thought there was an issue then they would register 
elsewhere.  Conversely, closing a TLD would be difficult - see below.  Finally, 
I note that RFC 1591 suggests that TLD structures should not be altered - whilst 
adding on might be argued to fall outside that prohibition, removing certainly 
does not.

    	3.1
    	Q: If so, what process should be used for the removal or closing of 
	existing 2LDs?:
	A: I don't think they should be closed but if they are then that should 
	only be done in two situations:

       1.  Where there are no registrants left in that space; or

	2.  Where all registrants in that space give prior consent.  Even if 
	there were only one registrant but that registrant was actively using 
	their name (with, perhaps, associated goodwill and investment having been 
	made), then what call is there for InternetNZ to interfere?  If the space 
	is moderated then the moderators prior consent should also be obtained.
    
   	3.2
    	Q:  Should any such process be included in the 2LD policy?:
	A: No - it is such a rare event it should be handled as a one-off with 
	separate consultation
 
4.
Q: What criteria (types of criteria and specific examples) should be applied to 
the creation of new 2LDs?
A: Current ones are OK - just need tightening up a bit.  Primary one is no 
confusion IMHO. Care does need to be taken that new spaces are not simply 
replicas of existing ones (as has been seen with .biz, where the vast majority 
of registrations have been of names already registered in .com)

5.
Q: Is the current process for creating new 2LDs too simple, too complex or 
about right? 
A: too complex
comments: Collapse the two comment periods into one.

6.
Q:  How much, if anything, should an application for the creation of a new 2LD 
cost? 
A: Current cost is about right.  If there is a community of interest then they 
should be able to fund the application fee very easily even if it means getting 
a dollar or so from each member of that "community"

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

8.
Q: Should there be different criteria or processes for the creation of 
moderated as opposed to open Second Level Domains? 
A: Obviously, there is a need to make sure that the moderator has the 
appropriate mandate to approve/decline registrations.  One might also consider 
some sort of indemnity arrangement from the moderator to InternetNZ to cater 
for the fact that we are departing form the first come first served principle 
and therefore potentially taking on liability.

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

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: see above - strawpoll is still useful but it should come at end of the 
consultation process rather than as a threshold test

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: Absolutely not.  That horse has long since bolted, the milk is spilt 
	and the stable door should be kept shut!  Refer RFC 1591 again.  I would 
	also argue that there may well be legal arguments founded in estoppel, 
	Fair Trading Act etc whereby aggrieved registrants who will inevitably 
	lose their names in the grab for 2ld names, could successfully claim 
	against	InternetNZ.  Many people will have paid their fees and invested 
	large sums in their domain name in reliance on the current divided 
	structure and policy from InternetNZ which makes no suggestion whatsoever 
	of the structure being collapsed.

	The chaos which would be caused by the collapse just does not warrant the 
	benefit .... um, what benefit - search engines do most of the finding 
	these days.

	I would assume that those reading this understand the likely chaos that I 
	am referring to, but just as an example - how does one decide who will 
	get a popular name like SouthernCross - who has a "better" right to that
	name?  By making this change, InternetNZ will have to squarely face that
	issue and either decide it somehow or, as has been done overseas, 
	effectively leave it to some sort of lottery process.  Judgments based 
	on number of current domain names or length of holding a current name 
	are IMO so arbitrary as to make them no better than a lottery.

	Finally on this point, there is a danger in rejigging the structure this 
	way that in the process we are creating a chink in our first come first 
	served policy which has stood InternetNZ well.  What we are effectively 
	saying is that whilst you might get a name first, it is open to us to 
	InternetNZ to change the structure later in a way which might give 
	someone else a "better" right to that name.


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: No transition process will alleviate the issue raised above.  This is the 
main reason NOT TO DO IT!

13.
Q: What is the best way to deal with any conflicts between existing third 
level registrants if the second level is opened? 
A: There is no best way.  All of them carry legal risk in my view.

14.
Q: Should registration fees be different (higher/lower) for Second Level domain 
registrations if they are opened directly to the public?
A: They should be much higher to cater fro the increased monopoly right that is 
accorded.  I would say 3 times higher to cater for collapse of the co-existing 
.co, .org and .net registrations which would then be monopolised by one .nz 
registration.

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: