Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
The most significant effect of this change would be to force everyone with a .co.nz domain name to also register the corresponding .nz domain name.
Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
These sort of second level domains have been largely ignored in the past.
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
Yes, provided there is a good case for them. That said, I have yet to see a single bank advertise a .bank.nz domain name.
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?
Any sub-domains commonly used for auto-configuration, .com.nz, and .gov.nz should definitely be prohibited. Also consider prohibiting second level domain names with fewer than a certain number of characters.
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?
A sunrise period would significantly reduce domain squatting.
Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
Offer the second level domain name to whoever registered their third level domain name first. If the offer is not taken up during the first week of the sunrise period, also offer it to the next person in line. Only once each third level registrants has had a week, make the domain name available to the public.
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?
Please see my answer to question 7.
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?