Keith Davidson Submission .bank.nz Keith Davidson bank.nz submission
From
: Keith Davidson
Received: 29 March 2007

I write in support of the application for .bank, on the following basis:

1. Does .bank represent an identifiable, significant community of interest?

While there are only a maximum of 16 banking institutions that could apply for a name
within this 2nd level name, it must also be noted that those 16 institutions have
customers numbering in the millions, surely a significant community of interest, and any
protection for those customers is to be applauded.

2. Does .bank represent an on-going and long-lived community of interest?

Yes - the banking industry is assumed to be the 2nd oldest industry on the planet, and
there are no known indicators that there is a useful alternative to banking services.

3. Does .bank conflict with, duplicate or cause confusion about, any existing 2LD, and is
a useful addition to the current DNS hierarchy?

Clearly the issue is that the banks are seeking to achieve a differentiating point from
other organisations, to achieve a clarity that is not conflicting with other names in the
existing DNS structure e.g. .co.nz

This application leaves opportunity for other types of banks to apply for their own 2nd
level domains, for examples:
- .riverbank.nz
- .bloodbank.nz
- .creditunion.nz
- .buildingsociety.nz

The first 2 examples show further clear use for other common non-financial bank uses,
whereas the latter 2 names refer to possible clear use for other financial institutions that
are not recognised banks under the Reserve Banks Act.

4. Does .bank use a name to represent the domain that is a obvious derivative of a word
that properly describes the community of interest or a complete word?

The use of .bank is patently clear in its intent.

5. Could .bank bring the .nz domain name space into disrepute?

I can not contemplate an example of how .bank could be used in any way to denigrate
the .nz domain name. I therefore believe that the application satisfies all the criteria under the 2nd level policy
and should therefore be approved.

Keith Davidson