Dear Kim

Appreciate your comments.

What would make the approval of generic names fair is if those names that
MelbourneIT have approved that should have been declined are also put out
for auction.

There seems something absolutely stupid and counter intuitive about
effectively putting a company's name up for auction.

The only fair system is to allow everyone to have their exact word(s)
approved as their company as their domain name and you can abstract or
expand on that core providing you don't infringe anyone else's lawful
approval of the proposed name.  If it is fair to abstract a name it is also
fair that you should be able to expand a name.  For example, if Mayne
Logistics can claim the name logistics as a domain name by removing words
from their lawful name, I should be able to add a word to my name -
logistics - and claim maynelogistics.com.au.

I am fed up with this argument that there is no property in a company name.
There is goodwill in a business name and if you actually understand how the
Govt treats the sale of small businesses it is clearly a case that it has a
component of property.  Also, proceeds of the sale of a company name are
taxed and that suggests a property component in terms of value.  Also, the
cricket loving PM protected the property rights to the name Bradman by
Regulation and this has been upheld by the Courts, so this also suggests
that there is property in name. So, what is so special about the name
Bradman?  It should not be protected any more or less than the name of any
other company or person, irrespective of size or position.  Isn't that one
of the fundamental axioms of our culture!

Further, I have legal advice that I would probably succeed a claim for a
common law trade mark as my company has been known only as Logistics since
1987 and has continuously traded under that name since incorporation.

However, I can imagine the fine reading minutia that will result, meanwhile
other names that should not have been approved by MelbourneIT are granted
absolution.  Is that fair - absolutely, definitely and emphatically no!!!!

Rgds

Adrian

===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan§ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan§logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2001 10:12 AM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] The Pending Introduction of .au DN Competiton


Quoting Adrian Stephan on Friday December 14, 2001:
|
| This is an interesting concept and I suppose it might suit some.  However,
I
| want the exact opposite.  I want to be known by my company name -
| logistics - and not some derivative of it.

A couple of points:

* If you want your domain name to be your exact company name, not
  some derivative, wouldn't you get logisticsptyltd.com.au?

* You are equating domain names to the postal system, when that is
  not a very good parallel. auDA is a resource allocation agency much
  like the way the ACA allocates telephone numbers. Would you argument
  go so far that you should be allowed to have the phone number "111"
  on your whim? At no cost? In theory phone numbers don't cost anything,
  and are an unlimited resources, just like domain names.

* The fact is, the naming panel have decided that the generic
  restriction should go, and that will happen. You might not like the
  allocation system (an auction if more than one person is entitled to a
  domain), but it is fair.

kim

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (329 subscribers.)