From:           Vaughan Reed
Received:   12 February 2014

Issue with the Conflicted Name Policy


The policy you are proposing for Conflicted Names is going to cause major issues for a lot of people, which will be extremely difficult to mediate without companies having to go to court to resolve. It also opens it up to people with Conflicted Names demanding cash payments to release the name.

Why does the policy not stipulate a hierarchy for who has precedent over conflicted names. I.e. the person holding the domain should have precedent over all other 3rd level domains unless the name is held by an organisation that holds the original registration for the

It seems crazy that someone with a, domain name has the same rights to a name as the person with the

With the proposed policy for Conflicted Names being as open as it is and requiring a mediated process to resolve, the only people that benefit from this are the owners of the minor 2nd level domains (i.e. and etc) who get a chance to secure what will become the primary domain (.nz). The organisations that secured the primary NZ domain name ( originally are now going to have to fight to keep hold of what is going to become the primary domain.

By stimulating an order of hierarchy for ownership, it would make the Conflict Name process clear and remove any unnecessary aggravation for the organisations that secured the primary domain.

Kind Regards,

Vaughan Reed