New domain name rules

[John Hilvert]

At 08:19 AM 5/10/95 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
>Is it asking too much to request people to read the documentation?
>
>Evidently.
>
>However in an admittedly forlorn hope that someone may just read the
>documentation the reference is:
>
>   http://aunic.net/aunic

Noted. But there are other references such as:
http://www.aarnet.edu.au/aarnet/telstradesc.html (Brief Overview of
Telstra's Internet Access Service)

Especially:, 

"..Internet Services

The following Internet Services will be provided:

     Domain Name Service.. "

>And no Sue, Telstra has _no_ role in the approval or rejection of any
><name>.com.au domain name. That role is undertaken exclusively
>by Robert Elz. Your statement "rejected byTelstra" is misleading
>at best and certainly incorrect in fact.

I think it is not unreasonable for thinking that Telstra had a role in such
decisions if it states it provides a domain name service.

Have you noted also the intriguing phrase at
http://www.aarnet.edu.au/aunic/policies.html#comau

"The administration of the .com.au subdomain is _undertaken_ by Robert Elz
(kre@munnari.oz.au)."

Compare this with:

"The .org.au subdomain has been _delegated_ to Robert Elz (kre@munnari.oz.au)."

Indeed, the use of "undertaken" occurs only for com.au. "delegated" is used
for all the others that Mr Elz et al have responsibility for.

One interpretation is that someone other than Mr Elz has the actual
delegation for the com.au application issues. 

More generally, the issue of review of decisions does not appear to be
addressed anywhere. I took this to be the point of Sue's earlier mail.
>
>So before eveyone else onthis list climbs into judgements as to
>whether Telstra acted in one way or another - bear in mind that Telstra
>did not act at all - it is not our role to approve or reject domain names
>in the com.au subdomain.

There's no need to be defensive. My initial response explicitly drew
attention to the need to determine who was responsible for the decision.

I was responding to the issue of what recourse, if any is available, to
someone who felt aggrieved by a decision or its manner.

I should add that I still think it is an issue that deserves airing. The
documentation itself is, as I have suggested above, potentially misleading.

Moreover I think there is a case for streamlining the system, given her
experience of the three week turn-around time. 




John Hilvert
Journalist at Large
"The shallower you are, the more ground you cover."
For great education software reviews try http://www.edutainment.com.au/