From:           No 8 Ventures Management, Jenny Morel
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?
No
We would think it necessary to have the domains for our companies at this level as well as the .co.nz so that we would have to double up

Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Yes
If we have for example no8ventures.co.nz, we wouldn't want anyone to be able to have no8ventures.nz. Too confusing.

Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
Yes
Don't mind

Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
No
Don't mind, but note that nobody can use "bank" unless an authorised bank and there are so few of these they might as well use .co.nz as they do now

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

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
If this goes ahead, we will have to have .nz and .co.nz to avoid confusion

Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
Give priority to the business use, usually .co.nz

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)
Consent is best. Failing that, give priority to business or on the size of the organisation

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?
No Response

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