Re: Melbourne IT's records

Re: Melbourne IT's records

From: Kerry Henry <KHenry§>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:19:29 +1100
Yep, a good point as well, however, a quick check would identify generics
already approached on - then allocate these out to those original
applicants.  For the others then auction to the highest bidder with all
players fully informed.

Yuk, what a mess.

This is what happens when parties play around with the free world
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew King <mking&#167;>
To: dns&#167; <dns§>
Date: Tuesday, 6 March 2001 11:07
Subject: Re: Melbourne IT's records

>This approach flies in the face of natural justice for those that
>actually read or knew the registration rules and thus did not apply
>for generic or reserved names.
>It would be quite unjust to proceed in this way as the current rules
>would effectively enable a reservation process which it is clearly
>stated not to be.
>I know a number of my clients that would seriously consider legal
>action against any party that allowed this.
>>The market will sort itself out post sale.  I understand that Melbourne
>>records are sufficient to track request after they took over the formal
>>management in Oct 96.  Maybe records exist before then.
>Matthew King
>Domain registrations, internet design, hosting and services.
>Tel: 61 02 9233 4471
>Fax: 61 02 9233 2777
>Mobile: 61 0411 303090
>Email: mking&#167;
>ABN: 30 774 334 175
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author. 374 subscribers.
>Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Tue Mar 06 2001 - 08:19:00 UTC

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