Question 1. Should the New Zealand domain name space be extended to allow registration at the second level, for example yourname.nz?
no need , some risks (eg ".government.nz" ) and dilutes the value of the existing .org.nz and .co.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?
well a definite maybe anyway: if there is interest and perceived value that people and companies are willing to spend their own money on, then sure. but this doesn't require the .nz to be opened up - how about you just have a "requests" page that solicits requests for sld's and lists current requests with the number of verified requestors and the threshold number required before you do it. and ditch the whole .nz idea.
Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
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?
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?
Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
no-one: this is precisely why it is such a bloody stupid idea
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?
trial by combat - which is effectively what will happen.
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?
because heaven knows you really enjoy this work and it adds value to our whole economy (yes this is sarcasm)
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?