RE: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton

RE: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton

From: Adrian Stephan <akstephan§ozemail.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:17:49 +1100
Thanks for the feedback.


This is an interesting concept and I suppose it might suit some.  However, I
want the exact opposite.  I want to be known by my company name -
logistics - and not some derivative of it.  Again it might suit some to be
known as an alias, but that does not suit me.  In the same way that it is
acceptable to choose to be known by an alias, it is only fair that I should
be able to choose to be known by my lawful company name.  Anything else
borders on industrial discrimination.

In earlier emails you spoke about emails being a lot less than .45.  I have
done some costs and I think I am safe in saying that the direct and indirect
consequences of Jan Webster's decision that logistics is a generic word and
reliability is not (either they both are or both are not if you understand
the disciplines) and the two companies are competitive, the .45 is cheap.


Rgds

Adrian


===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan&#167;logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: keys Family [mailto:keysfamily&#167;comcen.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2001 23:50 PM
To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton


Are you after a silent email address?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Stephan" <akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton


> Hi,
>
> I can't figure out why I should get excited about this.  As a general
> public, small business person, who has been forced to get involved in this
> "digital terrorism" masquerading as domain name policy over something
called
> the .au domain space, I find it difficult to remain relatively positive
and
> constructive.  The whole process seems counter intuitive.
>
> My view is that the ACCC should actually formally investigate the possible
> anti-competitive nature of the auDA concept of the .au domain space.  In
my
> view, and I could be wrong, there is some sort of anti-competitive
monopoly
> given to auDA by someone over a public facility that happens to end in an
> address .au.  As au is the offical abbreviation for Australia, then
> obviously there must be some significance in the period.  Neither
Australia
> Post, nor any other courier type company, has a general monopoly over the
> carriage of correspondence to a person or business whose address happens
to
> end in Australia or the official abbreviation au (I have actually had post
> mail sent with au as the country and it arrived without a hitch).  If
anyone
> wanted to set up a company to deliver mail (including their own mail box
> system), I don't believe they have to get a license that entitles them to
> deliver articles to an Australian (au) address.  So, why should anyone
have
> to get permission to set up a mail service to send mail to an electronic
> address that ends in .au?  Why can't we have a system whereby anyone who
> wants to set up a mail service can, and we use a simple address format
> exactly like we have now for a letter, or a telegram in the olden days.
>
> For example, say I wanted to set up a mail service that offered a specific
> service, why can't I set up a router address (e.g. lpl.au) and my
customers
> would simply have an address xxx&#167;lpl.au and I would redriect the  mail
after
> providing the value adding service.  Or, maybe xxx&#167;usmail, or even
> xxx&#167;apo.au (for Australia Post).  As this would be a business enterprise
it
> is linked to existing ASIC records and rules.  By extension, a domain name
> in one of the public routers (e.g. .com) a company would link this to its
> company name, again within the ASIC framework.  All fees, etc are just
> caught up in the annual fee to ASIC.
>
> In this process, the need for auDA disappears and all of the jostling of
how
> to make a buck out of small companies like me go away.
>
> Never have I seen anyone actually ask what us poor pleb customers might
> actually want out of a system. I see lots of stuff about what some fairly
> narrow interested folks have done and still want to do and lots of emotion
> over minutia.
>
> Generally, I believe the expectations are quite simple.
>
> Mail can actually be addressed to your company and not some name that is
at
> the whim (without justification) of some inane and self-interested policy
> that has not necessarily been implemented with rigour.  Under this
approach
> people could actually use a structured ordinary address such as
> adrian.stephan&#167;pob.5068.3149.au and it would arrive.  Why can't this be
> done?  Is it because auDA has not worked out how to charge for it?  Or, is
> it actually anti-competitive that, say, Australia Post because they have
the
> post office box system cannot do this because of some rules within auDA or
> the legislation.  The same logic applies to Document Exchange.  This could
> be xxx.yyy&#167;nnnnn.dx.au.  Imagine the uproar the Government would have if
> Australia Post decided not to deliver mail to addresses, people or
> organisations because it didn't like the words even though the name was
> lawfully approved and/or of good social status.  In fact, it seems to me
> that Australia Post offers an agile delivery address protocol that the
auDA
> process will never attain.  If Australia Post was allowed to use its agile
> delivery protocols in the  electronic au address, auDA would be wiped out.
> It is a matter of culture, and quite frankly, based on experience the
> internet folks are trying to impose a circa 1500 word culture. The culture
> is dysfunctional for what is needed in the market place.
>
> I would actually like to use a mail router identifier that clearly
> identified I was dealing with a provider that had processes that would
deal
> with mail that did not meet pre-defined criteria (e.g. xxxx, virus, spam,
> etc)and protected the integrity that I try to stand for, as hard as it is.
> These processes are about but they seem to be disjointed, asynchronous and
> do not provide the one stop shop for integrity protection that I am
looking
> for.  That is, I am prepared to pay for a service that "gatekeeps" my
> electronic mail. I am not interested in some complex process, I want it
very
> simple.  I want to set filters that unless the mail is bona fide and
> addressed xxx.yyy&#167;lpl.au it doesn't get delivered to me.  Is this
available
> but has not been promulgated to us mere mortals!
>
> The most important feature I am looking for is a process that protects the
> identity of the entity.  The current process does not do that, in fact it
is
> actually going to put my company name up for auction.  How can I protect
the
> integrity of my company identity when the digital terrorists don't give a
> stuff about anyone else's identity except how they jostle to screw a few
> bucks out of me each year.  How can this system actually comply with the
> OECD requirements for idnetity protection when auDA policy is openly
> chucking out the idea of being able to use your exact company name as a
> domain name?  I want to know who I am dealing with by company name and I
> want people to find me by company name.  Maybe, the OECD should come and
> audit the policy as well.
>
> I am prepared to pay more for a better service.  I don't want some el
cheapo
> deal that means I have to deal with a lot of unwanted mail or denies me
the
> expectation to use my company name as a domain name.  I shouldn't have to
> beg like a mongrel dog for my company name as my domain name, nor should I
> have to bid for something that others have not had to do so.  No one has
> ever been able to explain to me when I cannot use my company name to
> identify my company, in fact most laws requires anyone to do so.  So, what
> makes the internet so special that it can deny what is logical to everyone
> else except the "chosen ones"?
>
> The whole process needs to reinvent itself or it will self-destruct with
the
> current recursive "group think".
>
> I still can't get excited about the approval as suggested, because I think
> the current process is inherently anti-competitive.
>
> Could be wrong though and maybe I don't understand something fundamental.
>
> Rgds
>
> Adrian
>
> ===========================================
> Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
> Logistics Pty Ltd
> POB 5068
> PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
> Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
> akstephan&#167;ozemail.com.au
> adrian.stephan&#167;logistic.com.au
> www.logistic.com.au
> ===========================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David G Thompson [mailto:davidgthompson&#167;yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2001 16:16 PM
> To: au DNS List
> Subject: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm rather surprised that one or more of this
> list's subscribers hasn't found the time to send
> a bouquet (as opposed to the more common
> brickbats) to the list congratulating auDA and
> more specifically auDA hardworking Executive
> congratulating them on the announcement of the
> contract on foot with RegistrarsAsia Australian
> subsidiary.
>
> If the number of e-mails to this list in the past
> few years bemoaning the monopoly status of
> .com.au (not to mention .net.au, org.au et al)
> were printed out and lined up, they would stretch
> from Queen St Melbourne to Faraday St Carlton and
> most probably head up St Georges Road for some
> considerable distance.
>
> Conpicious in their silence are the holder(s) of
> the IP associated with Goodmedia <smiles>. BTW I
> have no shares in Goonmedia.
>
> List members might want to spend a small amount
> of time considering how much sweat and toil has
> gone into making this happen.
>
> I am happy to pipe up and state the bleedingly
> obvious. Congratulations auDA and particularly
> Chris Disspain and Jo Lim.
>
> This is a great .au DNS occaison. Australian DN
> holders will no doubt reap the benefits of this
> decision in the years henceforth.
>
> >From the MV Ca Hottub
>
>
>
> DGT
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
> your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
> or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (330 subscribers.)
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (330 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC