[LINK] new .au domain suggestions

[Russell Ashdown]

On 19 Nov 00, at 0:19, Danny Yee/George Michaelson wrote about:
Re: [LINK] new .au domain suggestions 

<snip>
>        .per.au
>  
>   For individuals - FCFS, open slather - but CAN'T be held by companies
>   or organisations, only natural people.
> 
> you have to confront the impact of FCFS on a space expected to scale
> to the entire population. Its very unlikely that FCFS meets wider
> community expectation here Danny. I know it appeals to you, but I think
> you will find in 18 million people other views predominate.
> 
So, what is needed is a unique personal identifier that cannot be 
duplicated to identify an individual, which is universally 
recognisable and easily usable to locate the subject.

Surprisingly to some, such a simple, universal system is already in 
existence and it covers the majority of the population: It is called 
the telephone numbering scheme.

If such a system was adopted, it could certainly help in tracking 
down John Smith in North Sydney from James Smith in North 
Sydney, especially if I had his phone number or the telephone 
exchange code for North Sydney.  Eg. .smith.0299572683.tel.au 
from .smith.0299640485.tel.au or if the TLD don't wish to extend 
down to other levels, how about something like: .smith-
0299572683.tel.au or .smith_0299640485.tel.au.

There is even a universally recognised reference to assist in the 
search for the correct Smith: The local phone book - on line or off 
line!

To those who groan that the purpose of the current DN system is 
to do away with numbers in favour of more easily recognised and 
remembered DN's I can only comment that for decades now, the 
citizenry of the world have coped with using and remembering 
individual phone numbers, to the extent that it could be claimed 
that remembering a phone number becomes second nature to 
many.

There are unique advantages to using phone numbers in DN's:  
Their use allows for a second point of contact.  A phone number is 
guaranteed to be unique.  If the area code is used, it would be 
impossible to duplicate the same number across the country.  In 
the case of multiple occupancy it would be possible to have the 
following: combinations: .smith.0299572683.tel.au and 
.jones.0299572683.tel.au etc.

Opponents will typically cite an example such as silent numbers 
as a reason that this system can not work or cannot be universally 
applied.  To cater for silent numbers, an arbitrary number (not 
catered for in the telephone system) can be allocated on a FCFS 
basis, eg. .smith.0012345678.tel.au.  And yes, you can argue that 
such a number serves to identify thos persons with DN's who have 
silent numbers, but no system is perfect, not even the current 
system and if a person is so concerned about their security, why 
do they need or want an individual DN anyway.  If they do, they can 
be catered for.


> 
>   	.loc.au
>   For local governments, so they can have something nicer than
>   northsydney.councils.nsw.gov.au or whatever is inflicted on them by
>   state governments at the moment.
> 
> there is a hierarchy of government. that is an observed fact, related
> to their place in the funding chain.
>   
This point of view displays the arrogance of the "gatekeepers" of 
the TLD.  They seem to see government in a top-down level of 
importance from national to state to local.  They see themselves 
(and their importance) in much the same way.  The fact is, most 
Australians are more likely to have a view that is the inverse of that 
view.  How often does Joe Citizen need to contact a federal 
government department as opposed to a state government 
department or a local government department?  If my mail is any 
guide (and ignoring the GST mega-mail blip), my local council 
leads the charge by 40-5-2
> 
<snip>

While talking of governments, how about a DN reserved especially 
for politicians?  Say, something like: .perks.au (Parliamentary 
Elected Representatives and Kindred Senators).  ;)

Russell