From:           Simon vdBerg
Received:    14 August 2012

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

Question 2. Are there any other undertakings that the Domain Name Commission should make while developing/implementing the policy?
Yes
Give register possibility to .co.nz holders first.

Question 3. Should new second level domains be created to cater for particular interest groups, such as .wine.nz or .sport.nz?
No
No please. With implementation of new gtld's there is no need for new second level domains on .nz level in my opinion.

Question 4. Should new moderated second level domains be created to cater for domain names that require special protection, such as .bank.nz?
No
Which special protection would that be? A .bank.nz would not give protection against malware. There are several ways, fore example browser hijacking, that can make an infected computer look like the .bank.nz website is legitimate.

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
I can't imagine that that wouldn't be implemented. How much confusion would there be if there are two different owners for myshop.co.nz and myshop.nz.

Question 7. Who should be allowed to register a domain name at the second level when there are competing registrations at the third level?
The .co.nz owner.

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

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