Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
For many existing business's this is just another expense with no real advantage and the opportunity for damage by a competitor.
Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
First right of purchase of the .nz domain to holders of existing domains like .co.nz for instance. This would stop the problems of competitors gaining a domain that may be damaging to existing business.
Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
These are less threatening to existing business than a straight .nz domain.
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
But there are a lot of domains that should never be allowed in the first instance especially when they conflict with or encroach on existing third level domains
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?
.com.nz is good for business's domiciled in NZ that trade internationally that can't get the preferred .com address.
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?
Avoids competitors acquiring a similar domain and damaging / piggybacking the existing business by perceived proximity. The planed sunrise period is not long enough.
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 existing holder of the third level domain. I would go as far a to say that the existing holder of the third level domain has exclusive right to the second level domain unless it is relinquished.
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?
This is a horrid concept, a competitor would seek to gain similar domains to existing businesses which ultimately would prove damaging to existing businesses. And how are you going to consent from two people that WANT the same thing?
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?
Most definitely yes
Question 10. Is the approach as outlined in the proposed amended policy in Appendix C appropriate? Why?
Timing of application is not a reasonable decision basis for existing businesses.
Question 11. Are there any other comments you would like to make relating to this consultation?
Domains are like real-estate, people have build businesses on what is available and a balance has developed, to add another range of desirable real-estate is good business for the developer, but in reality just a disaster for the existing businesses that have made branding decisions based on what is available. The only people that seek to prosper from this "development" are the people registering a raft of new domains, the existing businesses face more expense if they manage to secure the new domains, or if unsuccessful face parasitic losses by competitors looking to improve their positioning by way of this new opportunity. If 100 Dave Smith's apply for davesmith.nz please tell me that first come is not a reasonable decision basis.