.iwi.nz Moderation Policy Review Submission

From:		Steven Heath
Received:	1 December 2004


Please accept this as my comments on the proposed changes to the .iwi 
moderation process.

My comments are listed in two areas.

•	The proposed changes
•	What is ‘missing’

(1) Proposed Changes

(a) From the reading of the current and proposed policy it seems the biggest 
change is in Criteria 3 (b) with the inclusion of names being allocated that 
are ‘Tribal project names’. This appears to be open ended to make almost any 
name possible in the .iwi 2LD. 

Would it not make sense that these ‘project names’ to fall under .maori and/or 
.co/.org?

(b) I am pleased to see the policy supports the non-compliant register.iwi.nz 
name that should never have been approved, as it was not allowed by the current 
policy.

(c) The inclusion of a secondary moderator appears to be an excellent idea. 
I assume that regardless if the other changes proposed are agreed that NZOC 
would approve this change as well as the register.iwi.nz name.

(2) What is ‘missing’

(a) After reading the notes section several times it strikes me that Note 6 is 
in fact a major policy area and not really a comment or operational issue 
(which the rest appear to be).

The would appear to make more sense for Note 6 to in fact be added under 
Criteria 1 as it effectively bypasses Criteria 2 which appears to give 
different treatment to some registrants than others. Thus the policy would 
read as written but with most of the Note 6 detail listed as an ‘or’.

(b) The entire aspect of moderated domains is a shared group ‘space’ for the 
community it represents. I am concerned that this small 2LD does not seem to 
support this change from the ‘bottom up’ and appears to be a ‘top down’ change. 
I feel that any change to a moderated 2LD should be from the registrants 
desire for the change and that this desire is recorded as part of the change 
request. 
The over used word ‘consensus’ comes to mind which is very hard to describe but 
people ‘know it when they see it’. Perhaps this consensus exists but if so it 
has not been documented as part of the background material.

Steven Heath