In message <20020827043811.GZ83446(a)buffoon.automagic.org>, Joe Abley writes:

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:16:06PM +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:

...

In message <20020827040606.GX83446(a)buffoon.automagic.org>, Joe Abley writes: [Why moderate 2ld but not 3ld?] It's higher up the delegation hierachy, so there are more people that might want it.

I don't see that. Seems to me that the people who really care about what names they get will register the names wherever they can.

Does this mean that I can start selling names under newtld.naos.co.nz for the same sort of prices as names under co.nz get? Somehow I think not. Like it or not, there are advantages to shorter names, particularly where they're being printed on business cards, displayed in adverts, etc, with the expectation that people will type them in. Hence [a-z].co.nz, and [a-z][a-z].co.nz are all taken, for instance, but not all [a-z]{5}.co.nz are taken.

That being the case, there are probably the same number of people who want $name.co.nz as there are who would want $name.nz.

I disagree. I'm sure there'd be more people wanting $name.nz than $name.co.nz; possibly an order of magnitude more (but we might be talking a base smaller than 10...). While obviously the "land grab" could be managed, arguably that's exactly what the existing policy does -- manage the land grab. It's rather overmanaged for my tastes though.

...

...

[Why $foo-the-movie.nz rather than $foo.movie.nz] Why do you need one?

Because otherwise I think (a) a structured set of second level domains makes much more sense than the alternatives; and (b) we should approve any request that has a reasonable sub-delegation policy.

There might be an appearance of structure in the way things are currently organised, but I would suggest that close scrutiny of the names registered within the current hierarchy don't illustrate the point particularly well.

I quite agree. At this point there are two ways to go -- (a) make more hierachy in such a way that people can be persuaded to use it (bank.nz, et al), or (b) give up. If we give up, then it'll be impossible to get any sort of hierachy again later.

I almost agree with your point (b), except that in my mind there is no unreasonable sub-delegation policy, and consequently no need for any "we" or "approve".

I take it that you don't consider "we won't sub-delegate" to be an unreasonable policy, even for a much wanted name that would otherwise be an expected delegation point. (I do for "much wanted" names.) I'm afraid I have too little faith in human nature to think that the result of "any policy is okay" would be anything other than "no one plays nicely".

...

We could all vote "yes" for bank.nz and never have to hear about the deleation of bank.nz again. Imagine that. :-)

Why settle for a temporary cessation of symptoms when there's a permanent cure for the disease?

"I'm sorry sir, the legs will have to come off." "Which one?" "Both of them." Ewen - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog