Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
No unless all current .co.nz's have the option to automatically transfer to a .nz rather than adding an additional cost. Too much domain squatting and unintended online brand confusion or results that can never be fair to competing owners of similar domains.
Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Consider the impact on the current space in nz without reference to revenue.
Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
This is worst case scenario, just goes narrower into .nz when we're considering going wider?
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
Confuses the domain space even more for average users. It's up to the brands to sort out their
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?
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?
Too much domain squatting on a first come, first serve basis. Whoever happens to click at 00:01 on the first day gets the domain.
Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
The .co.nz owner. It's the currently accepted "top level" domain in NZ, maintain that to .nz for consistency.
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?
Independent panel that can look at the surrounding brand involvement that the conflicting parties already have.
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?
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?