Re: [DNS] markus.org.au

Re: [DNS] markus.org.au

From: Chris Maltby <chris§sw.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:10:31 +1000
> On 17 Aug 2004 at 15:10, Chris Maltby wrote:
>> The argument is that the political services provided by members of
>> parliament and candidates on behalf of their party is "a service that the
>> registrant provides", which is provided under the name of the MP or
>> candidate. It seems like an open and shut case to me. Whether the Liberal
>> Party qualifies as a non-profit organisation is another question entirely.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:07:17PM +1000, magic2147&#167;optushome.com.au wrote:
> Strictly speaking a member of a parliament is NOT a representative
> of a political party but of the electors of a particular electoral
> division (or state in the case of a senator) so the argument you
> put forward was somewhat specious.

Yes, but practically speaking, and without wanting to debate
the constitutional issues, the MP (and especially a candidate) is
clearly an agent and representative of the party that endorses her,
which satisfies the requirement in the auDA policy. The fact that
an elected MP has other responsibilities is moot - an exclusive
relationship is not a pre-requisite for registering a domain.

In any case, if you accept that political representation is a
non-profit activity (the payment of the MP is not "profit"), all
we are discussing is which entities are allowed to claim a
relationship sufficient to satisfy the .org.au policy.

>> I argued this with auDA on behalf of another political party and 
>> eventually got them to agree to this interpretation and issue a
>> policy clarifying statement to registrars.

> Perhaps this suggests that we actually need a 
> nameofcandidate.nameofdivision.state.pol.au domain space.

gurk. But see www.parliament.wa.gov.au in the members section.
They have an mp.wa.gov.au domain and {name}&#167;mp.wa.gov.au email
addresses, but not {name}.mp.wa.gov.au domains (yet).

> In any event why hasn't auDA spelt out the interpretation in the
> policy instead of keeping it a secret.

Ask them. For me, the policy is unambiguous and needs no
clarification.  That's not to say that the policy and its
application can't be improved.

Chris
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Oct 23 2014 - 16:00:14 UTC