Re: [DNS] thread.119

Re: [DNS] thread.119

From: Patrick Corliss <patrick§quad.net.au>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:36:42 +1100
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:36:34 +1100, Nick Andrew wrote:

> See my reply to Bruce Tonkin -- basically there's no downside to
> applying for a generic name because there's no (MelbIT) charge if
> the application is rejected.
>
> Your "Secondly" point also impacts the auction decision ...  domain
> registration has become a big driver for business registrations; those
> who "read the rules before applying" may well have not registered the
> associated business name; consequently they are ineligible to participate
> in this auction despite being an interested party.

Hi Nick

As far as I can see you are answering your own objection in point one.

Under the old rules a person might have wanted to apply for a generic domain
such as "clock.com.au".  To do this they would have to register a business
name from which the word "clock" could be derived.  An example might be
"Clocks & Locks".

However, knowing that "clock" was a generic name, they not only did not apply
(as you say free) but also did not register the business name either.

Instead, with a fancy for cute names, they could have registered "Tick Tock"
and applied for, and got, the domain name "ticktock.com.au".    It was not
that they saved the domain registration fee but they saved the business name
registration fee.

The point is that there would then be no record whasoever of their decision.

I believe somebody argued that the record, such as it is, is "incomplete".
I'd suspect that the more appropriate expression would be "almost
non-existent".

Even if the record is only a little bit incomplete, using it would be
arbitrary in the extreme.  For a start, it would require a significant
expenditure of resources to retrieve all of the historical records going back
for years.  This would be particularly onerous as many applicants would have
changed the name, address or contact details.

Then you would need to work out who was first, make them an offer and work
down through the list for each domain name.  Even if you did that, everybody
omitted would have the potential to complain and that would require more
resources to investigate.

Perhaps it is better not to think of the present system as being the "fairest
that can be derived" but as "the fairest that is practically possible".

Regards
Patrick Corliss
_________________________________________________________
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:10 UTC