From:           National Health Board, Ministry of Health, Neil Gyde
Received:     3 July 2012

Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example
No. The current domain name format serves the NZ population base (both registrants and users) very well.

Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Potentially reducing the number of authorised registrars; particularly if the proposal is adopted .

Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as or
Yes – as an alternative to the proposal. New 2ld names could achieve much of the intent of the proposal.

Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as
This would need to be decided on a case by case basis but extending the number of moderated 2ld is a likely outcome of introducing additional 2ld names.

Question 5. Should the registration of some names such as or, be prohibited at the second level to minimise potential confusion? What names, if any, should be prohibited?
Yes. We would argue that “health” and variations on the word “health” 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?
Yes – if the proposal is adopted. It reflects a ”fairness” approach to the issue.

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 the proposal is adopted, the preferred approach at 9.3 is supported. The registrant of the disputed 2ld name must obtain the consent of 3ld name holders or the disputed 2ld name will not be registered by any party. The proposal is not clear as to how long any prohibition on registration of a disputed 2ld name might apply; nor as to whether the prohibition relates only to the parties to the dispute or to any other potential registrant.

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?

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?
Yes – if the proposal is adopted.

Question 10. Is the approach as outlined in the proposed amended policy in Appendix C appropriate? Why?
Yes – the approach is consistent with previous policy and with ICANN policy

Question 11. Are there any other comments you would like to make relating to this consultation?
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. We are pleased that will remain as a moderated 2ld, but recognise that adoption of the proposal will have a negative impact on public confidence in the “health” name/brand. If variations on the word “health” can be registered as new 2ld names, the health sector could be placed in the position of “looking over its shoulder” and potentially taking dispute resolution action against registrants not willing to relinquish an apparent marketing advantage. That would be a decidedly different position from the highly credible 2ld advantage we currently enjoy.