RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au

RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au

From: Jo Lim <jo.lim§auda.org.au>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:52:10 +1000
Hi Mark

See the Call for New 2LD Proposals document at
http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-newname-2002/proposals.html 

This document clearly lists the matters that proposals should address
under each category. For example, proposals for new closed 2LDs should
include:

a. the actual name of the 2LD (eg. "name.au") 
b. the purpose of the 2LD 
c. the intended users of the 2LD (including registrants and
non-registrants who would benefit from the 2LD) 
d. the estimated number of potential registrants in the 2LD 
e. the funding model for 2LD operations 
f. a statement addressing the selection criteria 
g. an indication of why the 2LD should be closed rather than open and
what value is added by it being closed.. 
h. the eligibility criteria that would apply in the 2LD 
i. the policy rules that would apply in the 2LD 
j. the peak body that would manage the 2LD.

It also lists the following selection criteria to be used by the Panel
in evaluating proposals:

1. The 2LD must be robust, sustainable and viable. For example, in the
case of closed 2LDs there should be a clear, long-term commitment from
the body which it is proposed would manage the 2LD. 
2. The 2LD should serve the needs of users, or a community of users,
that are not well served by the existing 2LDs. For example, a proposal
should define the user group and indicate clearly why its needs are not
as well served at present as they would be with the proposed 2LD. 
3. There must be clear support for the 2LD, in particular among the
users it is intended to serve, and in general terms from the wider
community. Strong evidence of this support should be provided (eg.
letters of support, the resolution of a governing body, or survey
evidence). There should be clear evidence that user community support is
broadly representative of that community. Reasonable objections to the
creation of the 2LD from the wider community will be taken into account
by the Panel during its public consultation. 
4. The 2LD should widen the choice of domain names available to users of
the Australian DNS. For example, a proposed 2LD that simply duplicates
an existing 2LD will generally not be considered to widen the choice of
available domain names.

I would encourage people to read this document and, if intending to
submit a proposal to auDA, make sure they have addressed all relevant
matters. 

Regards

Jo Lim
Chief Policy Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA)
ph 03 9349 4711    mob 0410 553 233

Join the auDA Announcements list 
http://www.auda.org.au/list/announce


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2002 3:50 PM
To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au

Most of the comments on this list about the possibility of new 2LDs in
.au
appear to be in the category of:

"I don't agree with creating new 2LDs, even though I have no idea what
might
be proposed, and therefore no idea what I'm objecting to".

I recommend that people focus on concrete things to object to, rather
than
worrying about things that might never occur.

If you're looking for things worthy of scrutiny, here's something for
y'all
to work on.....



First, have a read of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the New Names
Advisory Panel.  Its at
http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-newname-2002/tor.html.

There are a couple of areas in it that concern me, and may be of
interest to
others on the list.





First Concern - have a look at points 1 & 2 under 'Activity and
Outcome'.
The TOR states:

"1 auDA will issue a call for proposals for new 2LDs in the following
categories:
1.1 Proposals for new open 2LDs
1.2 Proposals for new closed 2LDs
1.3 Proposals for new geographic 2LDs
1.4 Proposals for re-activating the existing conf.au and info.au 2LDs
The auDA Board will specify the selection criteria applicable in each
category.

2 The NNAP will evaluate new 2LD proposals using the selection criteria
specified by the auDA Board."


Surely that begs a few questions.  Such as:

* What exactly is meant here by "Selection Criteria"?  Criteria that
determines whether a proposal is for an 'open' or a 'closed' 2LD?
Criteria
that determines which of two competing proposals for the same 2LD gets
preference?  Eligibility criteria for Registrants in a proposed new 2LD?
What??
* Since this appears to be a policy issue, not a procedural issue, why
is
the auDA board, rather than the New Names Advisory Panel setting the
criteria?
* These criteria appear to be critical to any proposed new 2LD, since
they're going to be used to evaluate the proposals.  So how does a
proposal
for a new 2LD (due in by 31 May) address criteria that are unknown?  Are
people going to spend their time submitting proposals only to find that
the
proposal has no hope of getting up because it doesn't meet some
criterion
that isn't known?
* What's supposed to happen - is the auDA board going to have a look at
the
proposals, and then invent the selection criteria to evaluate them
against?
* If the criteria already exist why aren't they spelled out in the TOR?


auDA extending the closing date for submissions until one month after
the
selection criteria are made public might be a sensible move.  That gives
time to determine a) whether its appropriate for the board to set those
criteria and b) what the criteria are.






Second Concern -

"The chair of the NNAP will be Derek Whitehead, Director Information
Resources, Swinburne University of Technology."

Derek chaired auDA's first panel - the review of 2LD policies - and had
the
difficult task of being the groundbreaker and trying to work out how
these
policy development panels could be made to work in the real world.
Therefore I have a fair bit of sympathy for his task on that panel.
However, the actual outcome of that panel (the report) struggles to get
more
than an 'average pass' mark because it didn't address many detailed
policy
issues and avoided taking some difficult decisions.  The effects of that
'average' report have not been significant as long as monopoly
Registrar's
remained.  The introduction of competing Registrars in the future will
inevitably highlight the inadequacies of the outcome of that Name Policy
Review Panel.

I can guarantee that in the months after the introduction of the new
system
with competing Registrars, this discussion list will spend much time
arguing
backwards and forwards issues that should have been resolved in the
original
Name Policy review panel report, but weren't.

I don't mind auDA selecting Derek again to chair this new panel (he's
experienced in this area), but the standard of the report this time had
better be higher.






Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959










------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
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.  (309 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC