The following discussion came from aussie-isp§aussie.net :-

] On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Ken Hernfield wrote:
] 
] > From: Ken Hernfield <hernie&#167;deakin.edu.au>
] > To: aussie-isp&#167;aussie.net
] > Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 14:20:53 +1100
] > Subject: Re: [Oz-ISP] Re: Melbourne IT/Domains
] > Reply-To: aussie-isp&#167;aussie.net
] > Message-ID: <3.0b36.32.19961105142052.007007fc&#167;mail-r.deakin.edu.au>
] > 
] > The use of the standard company name is a big help when looking for a
] > source of info I thank seagate for using SEAGATE as thier domain name and
] > not SEAGATECC or what ever. The customer is being forgoten here...
] > 
] 
] although if the registry had denied the application because it was a
] common name (although it's not, assume it was) - what then?
 
Surely this discussion belongs on dns&#167;intiaa.asn.au, not aussie-isp?
IMHO it has nothing to do with ISPs, and you're more likely to get a
useful answer from the DNS list.

While I'm here, my $0.02 on the question:

There are proposals to set up a number of alternatives to com.au (and
also the international com, for that matter).  If this takes off, then
domain names will become even more difficult to try to guess than they
are today.

This could be a good thing if it causes The Internet to (finally) get
its act into gear and set up some kind of organisation_name->domain_name
directory service (like a white pages) that everyone agrees on and uses,
so that we can stop using guesswork+dns for it.

Last time I spoke to Robert Elz he didn't seem very concerned at all 
about whether people could guess domains given the organisation name.

Please send all replies to dns&#167;intiaa.asn.au and none to aussie-isp.
I'm only cc'ing it to aussie-isp so people there know where discussion
has moved to.
__________________________________________________________________________
David Keegel <david&#167;keegel.wattle.id.au>  I speak for myself, no one else.