From:           Nigel Hanson
Received:     11 June 2012

Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
Yes
Long overdue.

Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Yes
Need to review the Sunrise policy for this (see below).

Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
No
Let the organizations and businesses that already have derivatives of these decide if it's needed.

Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
Yes
Definitely should be (fair) restrictions around these 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?
Yes
.com.nz .gov.nz .edu.nz .school.nz .ac.nz .mil.nz .police.nz

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?
Agree

Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
My proposal would be that: (1) The first registrant (by initial registration date) of the TLD has first rights to the second level domain during the Sunrise period (2) If they do not wish to register the second level domain, then the next matching TLD holder has the right to register the second level domain (and so on). The ability for organizations to register ".net.nz" or ".org.nz" variations of existing ".co.nz" domains has long been a major problem in New Zealand. It has caused all sorts of confusion and finally those who registered ".co.nz" domains early on SHOULD be allowed to "right the wrong". By insisting on agreement between those parties who came along well after the fact is quite simply unworkable.

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?
Other (below)
Date of first registration.

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

Question 10. Is the approach as outlined in the proposed amended policy in Appendix C appropriate? Why?
Yes
Seems fair and reasonable.

Question 11. Are there any other comments you would like to make relating to this consultation?
No Response