Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
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?
That seems silly.
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
Would create a false sense of security
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?
If the government or other agencies wish to purchase those domains, they should feel free. This should be undisputed during the sunrise period.
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?
"Alternatively, if all agree, it could become a second level domain instead" I don't think the concept of second level domains (in this manner, and as in Q3 & Q4) should exist. I also disagree with “first come, first served” not applying after the sunrise period to domains "where there are currently multiple registrations of the same name in different second level domains."
Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
During the sunrise period: "If two or more domain name holders have the same name at the third level, no-one will be able to register that name at the second level unless they obtain the consent of the other third level name holders." After the sunrise period: “first come, first served”
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?
Consent. The domain should never be registered while a dispute with a 3LD holder is unresolved. It should be possible to redispute this at any time, particularly where a 3LD holder has let their 3LD lapse.
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?