Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
Not sure if I will bring any (new) value is the majority of the current .co.nz registrants will register their .nz variant.
Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Again they should really check what the added value would be other than an annoyance for the current .co.nz name holders.
Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
Would be good to let the market regulate these.
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
The more second level domains will be created the more confusion it will bring. As for bank.nz guess the current (or actually not any more) bank.nz wasn't a great success either.
Question 5. Should the registration of some names such as .com.nz or .gov.nz, be prohibited at the second level to minimise potential confusion? What names, if any, should be prohibited?
Ticking one of the major cons for implementing a .nz domain. So yes there should be some sort of protection for certain names. But I got the feeling that this will become a large group of names.
Question 6. Do you agree with the rationale for the Sunrise Period that would enable existing .nz domain name holders first chance to register names at the second level? Why?
Mostly they've spent a decent amount of time/money protecting the domain name(s) so would be fair to give them first rights.
Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
If its a company the .co.nz registrant, if its a organisation the .org.nz registrant, etc. Actually ticking another big con here. Registering direct on the 2nd level mashes up the whole current domain name structure.
Question 8. Assuming only persons with a conflicting third level domain name may apply, how should that conflict be resolved? By consent? Or some other mechanism?
Not sure. Only think the consent construction wouldn't work.
Question 9. Should the Domain Name Commission consider extending its Dispute Resolution Service for a limited period to cover particular sub-domains when considering whether a name registered at the second level infringes a complainant’s rights?
As given in some of the examples there will be some creative names popping up.
Question 10. Is the approach as outlined in the proposed amended policy in Appendix C appropriate? Why?
Question 11. Are there any other comments you would like to make relating to this consultation?