Re: [DNS] What's in a name? Too little, says panel

Re: [DNS] What's in a name? Too little, says panel

From: Ian Smith <smithi§>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:02:00 +1100 (EST)
Firstly, thanks to Joshua Rowe for continued posting of useful URLs.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

 > Briefly, comments were not mine, it was a report from the Sydney Morning
 > Herald.  The following statement is almost certainly not true:
 > > Most significantly, the report proposes anyone applying for a domain name
 > > should first hold an associated trademark.

It's only listed in the report as one of a number of ways of identifying
that may be considered, and this certainly applies mostly regarding the
commercial domains (, primarily).  It clearly has little or
no relevance to or, which are specifically NOT available
for commercial concerns who would usually qualify for .{com,net}.au

I'll be sending a submission, but briefly my concern is that the notion
of applying the same rules to ALL (open) domains for registration
requirements, such as trademarks, business registrations, company names
etc., that are appropriate to commercial domains, are counter to the
current (and hopefully continuing) requirements for the non-commercial
domains, particularly and, neither of which rated barely
any mention at all in this - perhaps not too surprising considering the
overwhelming predominance of commercial concerns and government agencies
primarily concerned with commercial welfare, represented on the panel.

I'll also be supporting the continued ban (with clearer definitions) on
registration of generic and geographical names as domains, and opposing
the notion that businesses especially (and who else could afford it?)
should register, or be able to register, in ALL .au 2LDs, as being
particularly inappropriate regarding, again, and 

Cheers, Ian

[.. cut ..]
Received on Tue Nov 21 2000 - 03:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC