Dear list members,

The following (possible) contradiction in the response of Melbourne IT to
the Review of Policies was pointed out to me today, and I am wondering if
anyone can help to clarify this?

To cite from the response:

Melbourne IT opposes recommendation 4.4.2.
There is currently no prohibition on 2 character domain names within com.au
so to introduce one would mean many licences would have to be cancelled
(snip)

4.5.1 Retrospectivity and prospectivity
Changes to domain name eligibility and allocation policies will not have
retrospective effect for current domain name licence holders, and will only
apply to existing domain name licences at the time of re-registration.
Melbourne IT supports recommendation 4.5.1.

(My summary) Melbourne IT opposes recommendation 4.4.2 on the basis of
potential licence cancellations on a retrospective basis - however
subsequently supports recommendation 4.5.1 stating that no retrospective
cancellations should occur.

Expanding this to another level, recommendation 4.5.1 is in itself
contradictory, because it implies that retrospective changes will be
enforced on existing domains at the time of re-registration despite the same
recommendation stating that current domain name licence holders will not be
subject to retrospective changes.

If retrospective changes are empowered under the recommendations (which
seemingly they are, albeit only at the time of re-registration), surely this
further adds to the uncertainty a company has over domain name tenure?

PS - With regard to recommendation 4.5.1 - Retrospectivity and
prospectivity - can anyone tell me the meaning of "prospectivity"? This
might seem pedantic however the word is not in my dictionary, and as it
seems likely that these recommendations will be further challenged, it might
be useful to know the authors intended meaning.

Don