My opinion:

It's a simple case of INA protecting their butt.  But with good
reason.

<example>
XYZ Co is approved for xyz.com.au and starts a highly successful
e-business. After 6 months trading XYZ.com.au is wanted by a trademark
owner of XYZ, a third party.  They take XYZ Co to court and win the right
to xyz.com.au.  XYZ Co's successful business is gone without the domain
it was based around, don't you think they would be after someone to blame?
The registar who let them have the domain?? Yeah, lets get 'em.
</example>

I agree that a lot of change is about in .com.au and .com.  All of .au for
that matter. But stayed tuned.  Although no one likes the rules to change
during the game, I think a lot of these changes are going to stop lawyers
getting rich from disorganised policy.  They'll get rich elsewhere I'm
sure. :)
 
Craig

____________ Craig  A. Clark ____________ craig&#167;cac.nu ____________ 
      Professional consultant by day, eccentric geek by night!
===================================================================  

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Raoul Wegat wrote:

> Things get more interesting by the day in COMAU...
> 
> Here's an email response I got when querying a domain application that
> was late in being approved (4 business days). I've blanked out our
> customer's details.
> 

[snip]

> Well I read the Policy, the Terms & Conditions and the PISP Agreement
> several times before ringing Jon Lawrence at INA. He quoted the Terms &
> Conditions s.9.7:
> 
> "The Applicant warrants to INA that neither the registration of the
> Domain Name nor the manner in which the Domain Name is directly or
> indirectly used infringes on the legal rights of a third party." 
> 
> He refused to say *why" INA was doing this except that INA could do 
> this "based on legal advice".
> 
> Ok, not only is this warrant made at the time of the application -
> electronically - but since when did trademark protection become part of
> the COMAU Policy?? And why is Melbourne IT processing applications
> "based on legal advice"??? The policy is pretty bloody clear to me!
> 
> Regards,
> Raoul