[isocnz-l]Beatup in Dominion
Simon Pleasants
>However, what concerns is the crappy level of reporting. I
> may be wrong but I don't think Oskar Alley is one of the usual tech
reporters.
> It may be just a distinct lack of clue on his part, but...
It might say more about the subbie and the Editor than the reporter. INL
does want to sell newspapers,after all, and what better way than to have
smut atthe top of the front page?
Tolley's bill is a serious worry as well. have you folks seen it? It's at
the Select Committee right now.
Simon Pleasants
> isn't it a responsible course
> of journalism to report that to the masses, so the masses can judge for
> themselves the level of credibility applicable to the person making the
> statement.
Given the subject matter, it was bad journalism. The root of the story was
Ritchie's submission, and this takes up perhaps 80% of the text. Tolley,
whose bill the submission addressed, gets one very short mention and is
merely paraphrased. The cryptic comment of the investigator at DIA is
repeated with no background, and the Minister of Internal Affairs -- whose
department would be responsible for administering the new law -- is not
mentioned once.
And one more thing -- which is perhaps more apropriate for this ng. I am
unhappy that neither INL nor any of the otehr NZ news media have seen fit
to embrace the value-adding possibilities of the 'net with their online
presentations. It is a crying shame, and bad journalism, and bad business
practice.
[snip]
> Having just read todays Dominion, I would assert that the story was
> about the most exciting news available in the capital city today, and it
> was obviously a very dreary day.
In an interview a few years ago, Clive James said "New Zealand is a
permanent slow news day."
ma...@tracs.co.nz
> Tolley's bill is a serious worry as well. have you folks seen it? It's at
> the Select Committee right now.
>
I hate asking this (as I'm managing NZGO at present and *should* know) but
is it online anywhere?
Mark
--
Insufficient Disk Space, Delete Windows to continue? (Y/y)
DPF
>The theme of this thread appears to be the shooting of the messenger,
>the Dominion in this case. While not wishing to pick on Mark's post in
>particular (oh OK - to pick on Mark's post in particular), if the
>highlights of the day in the selcet committee hearing yesterday were the
>comments made, then the reporter, and the Dominion, have done their job
>in terms of reporting the facts of the proceedings.
I disagree. If a journalist's job is merely to type up summaries of
what is said then one could ask the select cmte secretary to provide
these. A journalist should be able to apply some judgement as to the
credibility of the claims made. Also while still reporting the claims
they can indicate to the sub-editor that it is not a page one story as
it is unsubstantiated. Subs of course may or may not listen and the
sub not the reporter would have chosen the headline.
>The press gallery do
>not get an opportunity to question the people appearing in the select
>committee, they merely report the proceedings.
Of course they get a chance. They can not question them during the
presentation but can talk to them afterwards as often often happens.
>Because some people say
>some idiotic things, and those idiotic things are reported, doesn;t mean
>the reporter is not doing their job properly.
A reporter should be able to ask do you have any facts to back up your
claims and make a judgement as to the value of the claims in the
absence of such facts. If their job is merely to repeat absurd claims
then the definition of a good reporter would be one who monitors
nz.politics and reports summaries of everything Janice claims.
>Furthermore, the general
>masses who read the article should not judge it as being that newspapers
>opinion, or even that it is the general consensus. The masses should
>question whether the person who is commenting is qualified to comment,
>and whether or not those comments reflect reality, and/or coincide with
>their own opinions.
The reporter should have reported on the claims but also should have
challenged them and perhaps sought comment elsewhere. That is
balanced journalism.
DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
DPF
>On 11 Dec 2000, at 23:37, Simon Pleasants wrote:
>
>> Tolley's bill is a serious worry as well. have you folks seen it? It's at
>> the Select Committee right now.
>>
>I hate asking this (as I'm managing NZGO at present and *should* know) but
>is it online anywhere?
No. At present only Acts are available online.
David Zanetti
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 ma...@tracs.co.nz wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2000, at 23:37, Simon Pleasants wrote:
>
> > Tolley's bill is a serious worry as well. have you folks seen it? It's at
> > the Select Committee right now.
> >
> I hate asking this (as I'm managing NZGO at present and *should* know) but
> is it online anywhere?
I now have a copy. I'm not sure what the concern is about, but it in
essence:
- - Changes the meaning of objectionable in Secion 3 of the Films, Videos
and Publications Act 1993, by adding a new subsection 1A:
"(1A) Despite anything in the New Zealand BIll of Ricghts Act 1990, for
the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it--
"(a) describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with secual conduct with or
by children, or young persons, or both; or
"(b) otherwise exploits children, or young persons, or both, for sexual
purposes; or
"(c) exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both."
It then goes on to repeal Section 3(2)(a), 3(3)(a)(iv), and 3(3)(b) of the
Films Videos and Publications Act 1993.
That's it. It doesn't mention the 'net anywhere. I'd honestly say the
whole thing was a publicity stunt to get support for her bill.
- --
"The growing and dangerous instrusion of this technology" threatens an
entire industry's "economic vitality and future security"
-- Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA, on VCRs (1982)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine
iEYEARECAAYFAjo1OHkACgkQT21+qRy4P+T4MgCg7s2KNlXj+/m0xghLd5ZD/J03
K/YAniqPzOmf7UsPu7lG3kt4aM0O6OBt
=aofS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian M. Harmer
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.001212...@wakko.wetstring.net...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 ma...@tracs.co.nz wrote:
>
> > On 11 Dec 2000, at 23:37, Simon Pleasants wrote:
> > > Tolley's bill is a serious worry as well. have you folks seen it? It's
at
> > > the Select Committee right now.
> > I hate asking this (as I'm managing NZGO at present and *should* know)
but
> > is it online anywhere?
> I now have a copy. I'm not sure what the concern is about, but it in
> essence:
> - - Changes the meaning of objectionable in Secion 3 of the Films, Videos
> and Publications Act 1993, by adding a new subsection 1A:
> "(1A) Despite anything in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, for
> the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it--
> "(a) describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with sexual conduct with or
> by children, or young persons, or both; or
> "(b) otherwise exploits children, or young persons, or both, for sexual
> purposes; or
> "(c) exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both."
(snip)
> That's it. It doesn't mention the 'net anywhere. I'd honestly say the
> whole thing was a publicity stunt to get support for her bill.
It shouldn't need to. The net is just the choice of communication
channel, and ought not to to be relevant to the criminality or
otherwise of actions.
The offense is in publishing "offensive material" regardless of
the medium.
The bill as described above seems aimed at simply removing
a perceived conflict between the Films, Videos and Publications
Act 1993, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
It can be used against people who distribute objectionable material
by whatever means, including the net.
DPF
>That's it. It doesn't mention the 'net anywhere. I'd honestly say the
>whole thing was a publicity stunt to get support for her bill.
The MP who wrote the Bill (which as you said has nothing to do with
the net) has no control over what groups who make a submission may say
in their submission and even less control over how the media may
report it.
Keith Davidson
>
> I disagree. If a journalist's job is merely to type up summaries of
> what is said then one could ask the select cmte secretary to provide
> these. A journalist should be able to apply some judgement as to the
> credibility of the claims made.
David, you must have seen the press at select committee hearings. They
are there often for their entire 8 hour shift, and are primarily looking
to record the "significant events" of the day.
One could argue that Jane Clifton does a similar job for the Dominion,
she just has a rather interesting way of reporting her observations...
> Also while still reporting the claims
> they can indicate to the sub-editor that it is not a page one story as
> it is unsubstantiated. Subs of course may or may not listen and the
> sub not the reporter would have chosen the headline.
Reporters *never* suggest to the subbies what should or shouldn't happen
with the stories they file. The "holier than thou" subbies do exactly as
they please, and telling, or even suggesting what they do is a good way
for a reporter to find their story filed in the large round file.
> Of course they get a chance. They can not question them during the
> presentation but can talk to them afterwards as often often happens.
Select committee hearings usually drag on for more than 8 hours a day.
Many reporters work their 8 hour shift, and spend the break times filing
their stories, getting a bite to eat etc - not a lot of time for
interviewing. Also, most submissions are made, then the person gets as
far away from Parliament Buildings as they can.
> A reporter should be able to ask do you have any facts to back up your
> claims and make a judgement as to the value of the claims in the
> absence of such facts.
I would have thought that was very clearly the role of the pollies
comprising the select committee - or is that crediting them with excess
intellect?
> If their job is merely to repeat absurd claims
> then the definition of a good reporter would be one who monitors
> nz.politics and reports summaries of everything Janice claims.
hehe - now Janice should make page 1 - just to prove that while genius
has its limits, stupidity knows no bounds...
> The reporter should have reported on the claims but also should have
> challenged them and perhaps sought comment elsewhere. That is
> balanced journalism.
Again, I would suggest this particular story received its prominent
position to highlight the prattish nature of the discussions on the day.
So far I have not observed anyone saying "gosh, that awful Internet
should be closed down for this disgusting behaviour". All I have seen is
people ridiculing the submissions, or the newspaper that reported the
ridiculous submissions.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
DPF wrote at 2.31am:
What on earth are you doing up at this ungodly hour of the morning Mr
Farrar? I thought I was the only insomniac about...
Keith Davidson
DPF
>DPF wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. If a journalist's job is merely to type up summaries of
>> what is said then one could ask the select cmte secretary to provide
>> these. A journalist should be able to apply some judgement as to the
>> credibility of the claims made.
>
>David, you must have seen the press at select committee hearings. They
>are there often for their entire 8 hour shift, and are primarily looking
>to record the "significant events" of the day.
Apart from special legislation like the ERA the cmte normally meets
for no more than 3 - 4 hours at a time. Yes they tend to concentrate
only on the submission of significance so often many select cmtes will
have no press in attendance.
>One could argue that Jane Clifton does a similar job for the Dominion,
>she just has a rather interesting way of reporting her observations...
Jane is a very gifted writer.
>> Also while still reporting the claims
>> they can indicate to the sub-editor that it is not a page one story as
>> it is unsubstantiated. Subs of course may or may not listen and the
>> sub not the reporter would have chosen the headline.
>
>Reporters *never* suggest to the subbies what should or shouldn't happen
>with the stories they file. The "holier than thou" subbies do exactly as
>they please, and telling, or even suggesting what they do is a good way
>for a reporter to find their story filed in the large round file.
I suspected as much :-)
>> Of course they get a chance. They can not question them during the
>> presentation but can talk to them afterwards as often often happens.
>
>Select committee hearings usually drag on for more than 8 hours a day.
Not any more.
>Many reporters work their 8 hour shift, and spend the break times filing
>their stories, getting a bite to eat etc - not a lot of time for
>interviewing. Also, most submissions are made, then the person gets as
>far away from Parliament Buildings as they can.
With no offence to my journalist colleagues at Parliament things are
not that flat out. Most offices have at least three staff and being
busy is not an excuse IMO for doing a sloppy job.
>> A reporter should be able to ask do you have any facts to back up your
>> claims and make a judgement as to the value of the claims in the
>> absence of such facts.
>
>I would have thought that was very clearly the role of the pollies
>comprising the select committee - or is that crediting them with excess
>intellect?
They often don;t want to offend the petitioner :-)
When the bill is of an adversarial nature submissions will be
challenged and it is even known for staff to pour through submissions
suggesting questions MPs can ask. But for a low profile non partisan
bill one does not always have same level of scrutiny.
>> If their job is merely to repeat absurd claims
>> then the definition of a good reporter would be one who monitors
>> nz.politics and reports summaries of everything Janice claims.
>
>hehe - now Janice should make page 1 - just to prove that while genius
>has its limits, stupidity knows no bounds...
Heh heh.
>> The reporter should have reported on the claims but also should have
>> challenged them and perhaps sought comment elsewhere. That is
>> balanced journalism.
>
>Again, I would suggest this particular story received its prominent
>position to highlight the prattish nature of the discussions on the day.
>So far I have not observed anyone saying "gosh, that awful Internet
>should be closed down for this disgusting behaviour". All I have seen is
>people ridiculing the submissions, or the newspaper that reported the
>ridiculous submissions.
I agree there has been no knee jerk responses but still concerns me
that many people would have read that and thought there is a huge
problem when in fact there may not be.
DPF
Tis the season to be merry merry merry. Just got in from the Xmas
Karaoke Party - I love that song "Hooked on a Feeling" :-)
Hippo
>Tis the season to be merry merry merry. Just got in from the Xmas
>Karaoke Party - I love that song "Hooked on a Feeling" :-)
:0) What did Jenny sing?
Andy Gardner
>Tis the season to be merry merry merry. Just got in from the Xmas
>Karaoke Party - I love that song "Hooked on a Feeling" :-)
<shudder> Mental picture </shudder>
As long as you didn't sing "to all the girls I've loved before" this time.
--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
Hippo
Only if the show was over . . . :o)
DPF
>>Tis the season to be merry merry merry. Just got in from the Xmas
>>Karaoke Party - I love that song "Hooked on a Feeling" :-)
>
><shudder> Mental picture </shudder>
>
>As long as you didn't sing "to all the girls I've loved before" this time.
Nope - too many of them were there <g>
Keith Davidson
DPF wrote:
> Jane is a very gifted writer.
Indeed she is. But she generally only reports on the goings-ons in the
beehive, in her own inimitable fashion.
> >Select committee hearings usually drag on for more than 8 hours a day.
>
> Not any more.
The Firearms Amendment Act and the ERA certainly did... But then I guess
with around 2,000 submissions they needed to.
> With no offence to my journalist colleagues at Parliament things are
> not that flat out. Most offices have at least three staff and being
> busy is not an excuse IMO for doing a sloppy job.
What do you mean "with no offence"? All journo's should be treated with
offence... <grin>
> >I would have thought that was very clearly the role of the pollies
> >comprising the select committee - or is that crediting them with excess
> >intellect?
>
> They often don;t want to offend the petitioner :-)
I thought it usually depends on whether or not the submission is in
support or against the proposed legislation, and which side of the house
the pollie is from.
> I agree there has been no knee jerk responses but still concerns me
> that many people would have read that and thought there is a huge
> problem when in fact there may not be.
There may be a handful who might have been sucked in by the story - but
I imagine the vast majority saw straight through it.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Undoubtedly "Please don't let me be misunderstood" <g>
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
or maybe "I got plenty of nothing"??
Keith Davidson
Jenny Shearer
> > >Tis the season to be merry merry merry. Just got in from the Xmas
> > >Karaoke Party - I love that song "Hooked on a Feeling" :-)
> >
> > :0) What did Jenny sing?
>
> or maybe "I got plenty of nothing"??
Its "You better run, run, run"
Jenny
Hippo
ma...@tracs.co.nz
> There may be a handful who might have been sucked in by the story - but
> I imagine the vast majority saw straight through it.
>
Oh, come off it, Keith, you can't be merry-sunshine naive enough to believe
that. I can see your cheek about to explode from the pressure your tongue
must be exerting.
It said "porn", "children" and "web" - the public "know" there is a problem
with porn and the internet - the media have told them so often enough. I
suspect that most paid it little mind but stored the 'fact' subconsciously to be
used as 'evidence' in later discussions over dinner: "Didn't I see in the paper
the other day...? Shocking, isnt it? Something should be done!" until some
pollie picks it up as a cause (like Trevor Rogers did). None of them will
understand what the issue was(like Trevor Rogers didn't), only that a) porn
and the net were involved and b) there is an epidemic which should be
stopped.
It was straight up bad reporting. Of course, we're getting used to that. There's
very few journos outside the trade press (and not all the ones inside either)
who "get it" (tm) at all, IMHO
Regards
Steven Heath
of bank within the .nz namespace.
ISOCNZ is now formally issuing a Request for Discussion
(RFD) on the application as per the policy for reviewing a 2LD
application.
The applicant is the NZ Bankers Assn and it can be found at:
http://www.isocnz.org.nz/consult/2LD/
This also has the related policy for 2LD applications. To aid in
discussing the application a list called 2LDApp-discuss as been
created and can be subscribed to at:
http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/2ldapp-discuss
The period of time the RFD will be open is until Feb 14th, 2001
when a straw vote will be held. Further details on the vote etc
will be provided closer to the event.
The objective of this RFD period is to discuss the merits of the
application. The application is not a short process and a final
ruling will not occur until approx the middle of the year (if the
application gets that far in the process).
Please talk about this anywhere you wish but the 2LDapp list is
the best place to focus the discussion to allow others to follow
and participate. Please forward this message to anyone or place
you feel it is appropriate.
Steven Heath
.bank.nz Application Facilitator
Keith Davidson
>
> Oh, come off it, Keith, you can't be merry-sunshine naive enough to believe
> that. I can see your cheek about to explode from the pressure your tongue
> must be exerting.
I guess there was no real point in my trying to defend the
indefensible... <grin>
> It said "porn", "children" and "web" - the public "know" there is a problem
> with porn and the internet - the media have told them so often enough. I
> suspect that most paid it little mind but stored the 'fact' subconsciously to be
> used as 'evidence' in later discussions over dinner: "Didn't I see in the paper
> the other day...? Shocking, isnt it? Something should be done!" until some
> pollie picks it up as a cause (like Trevor Rogers did). None of them will
> understand what the issue was(like Trevor Rogers didn't), only that a) porn
> and the net were involved and b) there is an epidemic which should be
> stopped.
>
> It was straight up bad reporting. Of course, we're getting used to that. There's
> very few journos outside the trade press (and not all the ones inside either)
> who "get it" (tm) at all, IMHO
Porn and children on the Internet *is* a problem. If you don't believe
its a problem, find the IT teachers at your local schools and colleges
and ask them. But the solutions are not simple, nor for the simple
minded such as the contemplator of the piece of proposed legislation.
You are right, there are always the bandwagon jumpers who love this type
of issue. The same thing happens every time a firearms death or armed
hold up occurs, the bandwagon jumpers call for an immediate ban on all
firearms - a completely unworkable solution. They might as well try and
ban the Internet.
However, the ultimate fault is not with the newspapers. It is
organisations like ISOCNZ who have failed to educate the media, or the
public, into the technicalities and difficulties surrounding porn on the
Internet.
It also amazes me the floggings the media get for the most inane things.
When Diana died so tragically, the world went dog on the paparazzi, all
blame lay with them. If there was no broad appeal for pictures and
stories of the lifestyles of the rich and famous, there would be no
paparazzi. Similarly, newspapers do try and put a slightly sensational
slant on some stories, particularly on slow news days.
But in respect to the story in question, perhaps the Dominion could have
spent a bit of time balancing off the story. I didn't notice, however,
any submission to the Dominion from ISOCNZ to try and correct the
inaccuracies.
Keith Davidson
DPF
>DPF wrote:
>
>> that many people would have read that and thought there is a huge
>> problem when in fact there may not be.
>
>There may be a handful who might have been sucked in by the story - but
>I imagine the vast majority saw straight through it.
In NBR today the story got an absolute savaging - it was awarded the
biggest beatup story of the year.
DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
Boycott Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net>
Ban Spam! <http://www.cauce.org>
Ridicule Spammers <http://ga.to/mmf>
ma...@tracs.co.nz
> In NBR today the story got an absolute savaging - it was awarded the
> biggest beatup story of the year.
>
F**k!! Now I'm agreeing with the NBR!!!
Will it never end?
:(
mark
ma...@tracs.co.nz
on the 2ld list you said:
> Would be a blessing if they did. Moderated 2LDs
> are one of the little challenges for the SRS.
Not arguing but agreeing (yes, again!) What in particular were you referring to?
Cheers
Mark
ma...@tracs.co.nz
emotional after a long squawk ;-)
DPF
>David
>
>on the 2ld list you said:
>> Would be a blessing if they did. Moderated 2LDs
>> are one of the little challenges for the SRS.
>
>Not arguing but agreeing (yes, again!) What in particular were you referring to?
It has yet to be determined how moderation will work. Will the
registry be responsible for checking with moderators an application is
approved or will the Registrars have to do this? Or do you have just
one Registrar for the moderated domains?
Not a huge problem but something that adds a bit of complexity to it.
DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
ma...@tracs.co.nz
On 16 Dec 2000, at 23:34, DPF wrote:
> It has yet to be determined how moderation will work. Will the
> registry be responsible for checking with moderators an application is
> approved or will the Registrars have to do this? Or do you have just
> one Registrar for the moderated domains?
>
> Not a huge problem but something that adds a bit of complexity to it.
Right. With you now. My view (as a moderator) is that the application would
probably pass through to the Registry and then on to the Moderator. The
moderated domains will always have small communities of interest - it's
pretty much in the nature of a grouping that wants to keep itself exclusive ;-)
How might it work? Registrant decides to register bollocks.mil.nz, picks
Registrars-R-Us to do the business, application goes to the registry who flick
it automagically to the .mil moderator who says "yes, that's an approved
arms dealer" or "no, that's a wanna-be warlord - decline!" and enters that
decison in to the registry. If yes, the domain gets 'enlivened' in the next
update (daily or better); if no, the reason is passed back to the registrar who
goes back to the client with the bad news.
I do see your point about the added complexity but I don't envisage there
being only one Registrar for the moderated domains - that would remove the
choice for the registrants. What may happen is a community of interest
setting up its own registrar (e.g. a government agency handling all .govt.nz
registrations), but that's the community's decision to make, as is the choice
of moderator. It also means that all registrars may need to be au fait with the
procedures for all 2LDs in the NZ space, not just .co.nz but I don't think the
.nz market is big enough for registrars to specialise really.
Don Stokes
DPF <isoc...@isocnz.org.nz> wrote:
>It has yet to be determined how moderation will work. Will the
>registry be responsible for checking with moderators an application is
>approved or will the Registrars have to do this? Or do you have just
>one Registrar for the moderated domains?
On the contrary, it's quite explicit in the report. It will be up to
the moderators to form relationships with one or more registrars (or
become registrars themselves) to arrange for names to be accepted,
forwarded to the moderator for approval and inserted.
The rationale is pretty straightforward; moderated domains are such a
tiny proportion of registration activity, and are sufficiently different
in the way the have to be handled (ie registrations in an unmoderated
2LD can be done in real time, while in moderated 2LDs they would have to
be queued in some way awaiting moderation -- much harder to build
automated systems around) that it would be unreasonable to require
registrars to process them. Service providers need to handle exceptions
anyway (or kiss goodbye to any .com or other TLD registrations).
"We don't care," was the general reaction to those ISPs we asked about
how they wanted to handle moderated TLDs.
-- don
Ian Mitchell
self-interested group
Say the Bankers Association for .bank then we are creating a monopoly.
Organisations which believe they are banks (say totally web-enabled) but the
Bankers Association say No you Are Not!
Or "But you have not paid our membership fees"
may be denied the use of .bank.
Regards,
Ian Mitchell, FNZCS
Ph: +64 9 528-3350
Mobile: +64 25 965-608
> _______________________________________________________
> isocnz-l is an open mailing list created for the discussion of
> issues relevant to the Internet community in New Zealand. Views
> expressed are not necessarily the views of ISOCNZ.
> _____________________________________________
>
> go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/isocnz-l
> for subscription/unsubscription information.
>
DPF
>If the moderator is in effect an appointee or simply endorsed by the small
>self-interested group
>Say the Bankers Association for .bank then we are creating a monopoly.
>
>Organisations which believe they are banks (say totally web-enabled) but the
>Bankers Association say No you Are Not!
>Or "But you have not paid our membership fees"
>may be denied the use of .bank.
The proposed moderation policy is that the Reserve Bank, not the
Bankers Association determine who is a bank and hence eligible for
bank.nz.
The BANZ has specifically said it will be open to non members of the
BANZ as long as they are a registered bank.
ma...@tracs.co.nz
> If the moderator is in effect an appointee or simply endorsed by the small
> self-interested group
> Say the Bankers Association for .bank then we are creating a monopoly.
>
No, I don't think so. The purpose of moderation is to create a closed and
somewhat authoitative group (i.e. the Internet User can know that an entity
registered in .bank is actually a bank, or that an entity in .govt has
something to do with the function of government). That's not monopoly in my
book. Having criteria for entry to a certain space is acceptable as long as
they are transparent to the applicants.
> Organisations which believe they are banks (say totally web-enabled) but the
> Bankers Association say No you Are Not! Or "But you have not paid our membership
> fees" may be denied the use of .bank.
>
DPF has answered this quite well.
mark
Hippo
/snip/
>Porn and children on the Internet *is* a problem. If you don't
believe
>its a problem, find the IT teachers at your local schools and
colleges
>and ask them.
Or consult (sorry for long
address)http://www.dia.govt.nz/DIAwebsite.nsf/URLindex/DF667AB0DC96F
927CC2568F7007CB1D1
Steven Heath
On 17 Dec 00, at 9:49, Ian Mitchell wrote:
> If the moderator is in effect an appointee or simply endorsed by the
> small self-interested group Say the Bankers Association for .bank then
> we are creating a monopoly.
>
> Organisations which believe they are banks (say totally web-enabled)
> but the Bankers Association say No you Are Not! Or "But you have not
> paid our membership fees" may be denied the use of .bank.
A 'bank' is defined by parliament and a 'permit' that the Reserve Bank
issues. You can be a bank and not be part of the Assn but you cant be a
member of the Assn and not be a Bank.
The discussion on the 2LDApp-Discuss list is talking about these types of
issues and from recall the 'requirements' for getting a .bank.nz name are in
the application.
Join up on the list
(http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/2ldapp-discuss) it is not
high traffic (5-10 messages a day at moment) and several people are on the
list from the applicant side.
Steven Heath
.bank.nz Application facilitator
Martin Brabander
> On 17 Dec 00, at 9:49, Ian Mitchell wrote:
>
> > If the moderator is in effect an appointee or simply endorsed by the
> > small self-interested group Say the Bankers Association for .bank then
> > we are creating a monopoly.
> >
> > Organisations which believe they are banks (say totally web-enabled)
> > but the Bankers Association say No you Are Not! Or "But you have not
> > paid our membership fees" may be denied the use of .bank.
>
> A 'bank' is defined by parliament and a 'permit' that the Reserve Bank
> issues. You can be a bank and not be part of the Assn but you cant be a
> member of the Assn and not be a Bank.
What about "blackstump.food.bank.nz"? The discussion seems to be only looking
at financial 'banks'!
Martin
Andy Gardner
>at financial 'banks'!
Dear Domainz,
Please may i registur sperm.bank.nz
I need it for a project I am wurking on.
Can I pay you next week?
David Mohring
>>What about "blackstump.food.bank.nz"? The discussion seems to be only looking
>>at financial 'banks'!
>
>Dear Domainz,
>
>Please may i registur sperm.bank.nz
>
>I need it for a project I am wurking on.
>
>Can I pay you next week?
>
a Wunch of Bankers?
David Mohring - other 2nd level domains - butcher, baker, candlestickmaker ?
Steven Heath
> > A 'bank' is defined by parliament and a 'permit' that the Reserve
> > Bank issues. You can be a bank and not be part of the Assn but you
> > cant be a member of the Assn and not be a Bank.
>
> What about "blackstump.food.bank.nz"? The discussion seems to be only
> looking at financial 'banks'!
Martin,
As I said in my post, 'bank' is defined by an act of parliament. If the
food bank started even to imply it offered money related services
(say similar to a bank) I am sure some legal type person would
comment in their ear.
We have created a list for this discussion, ppl from the applicants
are on the list posting. If you want to make your point on that list
please do.
SPH
Keith Davidson
>
> Dear Domainz,
>
> Please may i registur sperm.bank.nz
>
> I need it for a project I am wurking on.
>
> Can I pay you next week?
We will need a large deposit first...
Keith Davidson
Andy Gardner
Can you give me a hand with that?
Keith Davidson
> Keith Davidson
> >Andy Gardner wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Domainz,
> >>
> >> Please may i registur sperm.bank.nz
> >>
> >> I need it for a project I am wurking on.
> >>
> >> Can I pay you next week?
> >
> >We will need a large deposit first...
>
> Can you give me a hand with that?
I'm sorry, I already made a withdrawal today...
Keith Davidson