Further to Mark Hughes' and  Nick Andrew's comments (below), the point made
by Robert Elz about stability of domain names in his submission to the Name
Panel was addressed by the Panel and ultimately the auDA Board, although
this may not be apparent.

Elz point: "To achieve stability of domain names, no domain name was ever to
be removed from a domain name holder (other than by operation of law) as
long as the domain name holder continued to desire to retain the domain
name."

This point, together with other related issues such as claimed superior
legal rights of trade mark over domain names, were addressed specifically
and at length by the Panel, including in:

- a submission to the Panel by SETEL (importance, revocation and security of
tenure of domain name licences,
<http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-name-2000/submissions/brown.html>)

- a submission to the Panel by the ACCC (Registration of Products and
Services and Application of Trademark Law,
<http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-name-2000/submissions/accc.html>)

- in Panel meeting discussions (no hierarchy of rights,
<http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-name-2000/papers/27Marchminutes.html>)

- in the Panel's Final Report (security of tenure over domain name licence
<http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-name-eligibility-final.html#TOC3.8>)

The Board accepted the Panel's recommendation that existing domain name
licences should be 'grandfathered' from future policy changes, in order to
provide existing registrants with security of tenure. This is consistent
with past practice, for example when the restriction on generic domain names
in com.au was introduced in 1996, registrants who had previously registered
generic names were allowed to keep them. (Source: Jo Lim, auDA's Chief
Policy Officer, 15 Aug 2001 posting to [DNS],
<http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/082001/0014.html>.)

There still remains a residual concern in my mind as to whether the issue of
"security of tenure" has been adequately dealt with, but time will tell -
particularly in the light of any decisions made under the new au Dispute
Resolution Process (auDRP) and by the Courts.

Ian

--
Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Limited (SETEL)
http://www.setel.com.au   mailto:ian.johnston&#167;setel.com.au

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
Advancing and representing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and electronic commerce consumers

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Andrew [mailto:lists-dns&#167;nick-andrew.net]
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2002 8:16 AM
To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] Geographical Names

On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 02:55:48AM +1100, Mark Hughes wrote:
> I also note that grandfathering is strongly recommended by Robert Elz - as
> you can see from his submission to the auDA name panel
> (http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-name-2000/submissions/elz.html):
>
> "To achieve stability of domain names, no domain name was ever to be
removed
> from a domain name holder (other than by operation of law) as long as the
> domain name holder continued to desire to retain the domain name."
>
> Now, my personal view is that I agree completely with Robert on this one -
I
> think he has it absolutely correct.

Hear Hear ... /me too. IMHO, to do otherwise raises issues of privacy
and security - for example, email intended for the previous registrant
being delivered to the new registrant. (The domain name is the same,
how is any sender to know that the person behind the domain name has
changed?)

Nick.
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.  (330 subscribers.)