Re: DNS: Points for disscussion at the meeting 16\05\97

Re: DNS: Points for disscussion at the meeting 16\05\97

From: Nick Andrew <nick§>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:37:11 +1000 (EST)
Forwarding a message from whippet:
> The following a relevent points for discussion at the upcoming meeting 
> re dns allocations

I don't think so. You would like to involve everybody in your private
feud. The DNS forum is not a forum for resolution of disputes. It isn't
even for discussion of domain policies like that which is
evidently following. It is all about the management of the .au namespace,
which is not directly relevant to your problem.

> > The trading name of the company in the registry is Weddings Online
> > 
> > My trading name is (Registered Number 1321533n (VIC)) I see
> > a clear conflict here if a domain name is awarded to an opposing company
> > in my company's registered business name.

Why can't you just accept that they have as much "right" to the name as
you have (if any), and they got in first? IMHO nobody has any a-priori
"right" to a particular domain name and "rights" are only aquired by the
party to whom the domain has been granted by the domain administrator
- i.e. nobody has any pre-existing right to "" but once
the domain administrator assigns that domain to some organisation that
organisation then has the right to the name (the name can't be taken
from them).

> As I read the domain policy, a dispute should be resolved by the parties
> concerned then
> notified as to the resolution of such a dispute. In my case,
> the dispute would appear obvious to the administrators of the domain
> names yet I was not even notified of a rival application. (Hardly giving
> me room for negotiation)

There's no room for "negotiation" before registration since you don't
negotiate with the DNA, you negotiate with the other party - and that's
what you're doing. The fact that your negotiations have been fairly
ineffective isn't a problem for the DNA's concern.

ObDNSManagementObservation: This is the sort of situation which I
predicted would occur if a public notification period became part of
the policy. Since it's happened anyway, without any public notification
period, it occurred to me that AUNIC should have rejected the complainant's
request (the second one) since another request had already been
accepted for that domain name, and the domain should have been in PENDING
state. Is that normally the case, and is there a lag between acceptance
of a request and flagging of the domain name which would allow this
sort of situation?

Let it be.

Kralizec / Zeta Microcomputer Software  Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
P.O. Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765
Received on Tue May 13 1997 - 21:31:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC