Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

From: Rick Welykochy <rick§>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:35:24 +1000
David Keegel wrote:
> ] Peter Gerrand wrote:
> ]
> ] > >If we assume that Melbourne IT is correct in not allowing certain
> ] > tradenames under
> ] > [not quite right; we can register them under current policies if the TM
> ] > also coincides with a subset of the applicant's ACN or RBN - and it is not
> ] > already allocated]
> ]
> ] Quick question, Peter.
> ] Can I register a domain in without having an ACN or RBN?
> What do you mean by "I"?
> Only businesses can register domains in
> That might sound obvious, but it isn't.  And its important to understand.
> For example when the business is a company, natural persons can only be
> involved to the extent that they are an agent of the business or doing
> something on behalf of the business.
> A natural person cannot register themself a domain in
> A product cannot register itself a domain in
> Only companies or similar businesses can register domains in

I cannot understand, given the above criteria, why this domain
was registered in, this year:

AUNIC Name Status Report
This name is listed in the AUNIC registry:

    Object-Type: DOMAIN
    Organization-Name: Daniel Stephen Waldron
    Organization-ACN: 000000000
    Created: 13-Jan-98

An enquiry to Mel.I.T. informed me of some strange rule
that allows a natural person to obtain a domain name in if they have demonstrated they have been tradining
under that name. In the above case I would assume D.S.Waldron
demonstrated that he was trading as "Dan" but without an RBN.

Any confirmation or elaboration on this one, Peter?

 _/  Richard Welykochy                 mailto:rick&#167;
_/  Dot Communications Ltd   
Received on Mon May 18 1998 - 19:37:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC