I wonder if it should become a requirement of *ALL* 2LD to accept in principle
provision of emergency fallback services in the event of any other 2LD becoming
disfunctional because of the owning/leasing/adminstering bodies failing
in some major way.

I like the aspect of biz.au including a 2-partner model where each agrees to
take over the other parties load should there be a single-point failure.

The "vulgar" rule is going to run into the same problems the Lord High
Chancellor does in trying to define what will "corrupt the average man in
the street". Mightn't it be better to try to define a rule that 2LD can
exclude domains percieved to be "against the public interest" with some
kind of external arbitration process? That would permit exclusion of claims
on generics or other words (iso 2 and 3 letter countrycodes?) likely to cause
confusion. Frankly, I doubt there is a body outside of the courts which would
want to have a *bar* of it without some kind of legislated indemnity.

Neither of the proposers are on the eastern seaboard. I don't see that as a
problem in itself, but it might be sensible to ensure there was a well 
connected secondary for the domain outside of SA/WA. Does that have to be
reflected in a policy statement for domains? I doubt it, although its similar
to requiring a DNA to be connected to more than one ISP or backbone-class
provider.

Don't you run the same risk com.au does in promoting state level business
registration to "peer" with national/ASX forms in causing namespace collision?

-George

--
George Michaelson         |  connect.com.au pty/ltd
Email: ggm§connect.com.au |  c/o AAPT,
Phone: +61 7 3834 9976    |  level 8, the Riverside Centre,
  Fax: +61 7 3834 9908    |  123 Eagle St, Brisbane QLD 4000