Adam

I'm not going to take this much further, but your ideas for DNS are very
different than mine.
I feel that domain should be used in ways that compliment companies,
organisations, individuals, non-profits policital parties eetc etc and you
are using leglisative law to restrict and stop open use of the DNS...
Not my idea of the DNS...

Regards,

Michael-Pappas.


>
>>Example
>>
>>LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY 004224364
>>LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY (Registered charity.)
>
> ACN 079 815 697 REGD LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HEALTH CARE LIMITED VIC
> B1469489D REGD THE LITTLE COMPANY ACN 004 218 857 REGD LITTLE'S
> PROPRIETARY  LIMITED ACN 004 224 364 REGD THE CORPORATION OF THE LITTLE
> COMPANY OF MARY  ACN 072 042 089 REGD THE LITTLE COMPANY RETREAT PTY.
> LTD. ACN 001 290 722  REGD J H LITTLE & CO PTY LTD QLD BN2150128 REGD
> L.G. LITTLE & CO QLD  BN6587550 REGD TLC THE LITTLE COMPANY NSW
> M5784009 REGD TREVOR LITTLE AND  CO ACN 062 381 739 REGD *LITTLE &
> ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. ACN 003 119 220 REGD  LITTLE & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
>
> I'm sorry I don't see it there.
>
> And it's not a registered charity:
>
> Laura Johnson Home
> Learing for all
> Learning Links
> Legacy Club of Adelaide Inc.
> Leo & Jenny Leukaemia and Cancer Foundation
> Leprosy Mission
> Leukaemia Foundation of Australia Limited
> Leukaemia Research & Support Fund
> Lord Mayor's Charitable Fund
> Lort Smith Animal Hospital
> Lost Dog's Home
>
>
> So it's a mute point.  I'm not interested in Hypothetical, I asked you
> to  provide me with an example of a company/business that had the exact
> same  registered name as a charity that was not common with board or
> proprietors.
>
>>Who gets the name here... why should either be restricted to use LCM in
>>referring to their company?
>>Or
>
> Neither because it will never conflict due to LEGISLATION.
>
>>Should they be restricted to referring to there respective
>>organisations as
>>
>>LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.nsw.au
>>LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.org.au
>
> NO, because THE SAME name can not be registered as BOTH due to
> LEGISLATION.
>
> Not sure I'm getting through here.  We're talking about REGISTRATION
> through LEGISLATION not "making up names and registering a domain name
> which is not legislated or government managed."
>
>>What gives the business more right over the state name.
>
> None, because if there was a charity registered as LITTLE COMPANY OF
> MARY,  then the registration of the business name or company would be
> rejected.
>
> That is because Business/Company/Charity names are managed under
> LEGISLATION
>
>> > All three registries are managed by the NSW Department of Fair
>> > Trading.
>> >  As  such, the data is contained in one register and only UNIQUE
>> > non-conflicting  names can be created.
>>
>>There are similar names and I am presuming that you are suggesting that
>>the rules would mean that you have to get your full registered name
>>.nsw.au and you have no choice.
>
> Yes, why not?
>
>>  NSW BN97760386 THE DOMAIN NAME MACYOURDAY
>>  NSW BN97762066 THE DOMAIN NAME MCD
>>  NSW U5604003 DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
>
> Great so they are entitled to their nsw.au name registration.  If they
> want  a SHORTER domain name, they should think about a SHORTER business
> name, or  a trademark, in which case a 2LD for trade marks can be
> opened as well.
>
> Now there would be NO conflict between a Business Name and a Trade mark
> -  at least in theory.
>
>>I see no reason why all the three above have same right to use
>>domainnameservices.com.au or even nsw.au
>
> Only the last one has the right, the others have additional words that
> IDENTIFY themselves.
>
> The LAW says you must clearly and accurately IDENTIFY yourself and
> TRADE  under  the name that you have REGISTERED, not an abbreviation or
> variation  of the name.
>
> The law says that if you trade or identify yourself using any name
> other  than your OWN PERSONAL NAME then you are trading illegally and
> eligible for  a $25,000 fine.
>
> Where is the CONFUSION?
>
> The LEGISLATION exists.  Does auDA see itself as having a higher status
>  than that of the LAW that existed LONG before it and the DNS did?
>
> Why RE-CREATE a wheel that has been tried and tested and has no
> argument?
>
> That was my argument all along. More than 5 years ago.
>
>> > So there is STILL no conflict (except assn's and charities across
>> > multiple  states, but come on, surely we have enough brain power to
>> > even solve that one?)
>>
>>Well yes, but your now saying that asn's and org's that only run in NSW
>>or VIC have no rights to the nsw.au or vic.au names, when it can be
>>seen very clearly that they do.
>
> Ok, so allow them either way, but they need only ONE registration, not
> TWO,  or TEN or 55.  Or make it automatic that those who qualify for
> other name  space get that name space.  For goodness sake it costs next
> to nothing to  run and administer DNS.  This is the Norties, not the
> 50's.
>
>> >>Who has the right to the name, why does a business have more
>> >>propritity right to use the state name than an charity or even an
>> >>association?
>> >
>> > That point is mute as noted above.
>>
>>You may think that it's mute, when I can only see that your suggestion
>>outs us under lock and key, stifling, marketing, forward thinking
>>business plans and creative personal sites.
>
> It doesn't stifle the market except for those who want to sell the same
>  service 20 times to the poor sucker who doesn't understand any of it
> because they are sold the line "If you don't register these names
> TODAY,  you will have your identity stolen."  That's CRAP and you ALL
> know it,  including the scammers.
>
>>We do not need to be told to the point of no choice.
>
> But you already are!  If you TRADE under an abbreviation of your
> company  name,  you ARE trading in contravention of CORPORATIONS LAW.
> There is no  "choice" there, it's already set.
>
> If you want to argue about derivatives of company and business names,
> take  it up with your state agency or ASIC.  Not me or the DNS.
>
> IT'S LAW.  Not CHOICE.
>
>>  choice is our right, internet a freedom
>
> No, Internet is not a freedom since the inception of ICANN and auDA.
>
> Certainly not since the majority of people in Australia still can't
> access it.
>
> You have to remember I come from an era in the late 1980's where I
> provided  Internet e-mail and other services FREE of charge to around
> 2000 people in  Australia across multiple capital cities.  It didn't
> cost much to do, well,  ok, my company absorbed the cost, we only
> allowed our non productive time  to the consumers.
>
>>and one that we
>>should not stagnate with a ball a chain to those who want to use it.
>
> Registering domain names as a commercial identity is not a ball and
> chain,  the ball and chain already exists in:
>
> Corporations Law
> Business Names Act
> Charities Act
> Associations Act
> etc
>
> Follow the established route and improve on it, however auDA sees fit
> to  create a nightmare it's not really prepared for in the future. I
> forewarn,  as I did in 1996/7, that auDA will suffer the consequence of
> creating a  system of rules that are diametrically opposite that of the
> legislation  which governs the land.
>
>>It can be said that it does matter though. Getting people to remember
>>your number is the key. Easier to see the 123... and recogonise what
>>you saw that backwards...
>
> I totally agree, so why not register a company name "12345678 PTY
> Limited"  and the SUE Telstra for the number - after all, it's your
> LEGAL right?
>
> Or are you saying that not all things are equal and we really don't
> have a  choice in everything?  (refer above your comments on choice and
> freedoms.)
>
>> > Does having a fruit shop on the corner of Archer and Victoria Avenue
>> > have  some advantage over one in Chatswood Chase?
>>
>>Don't know that area, but it can be said that a specific corner or
>>peace of real estate has a definite advantage over another. Some have
>>more and some have less.
>
> Well, there you are wrong.  There is no parking, great exposure,
> probably  why Centerlink occupy the site.  Parking is at Westfield and
> Chatswood  Chase.  So why get an nice sunny outdoor site if the
> consumer isn't going  to walk in, but only drive past.
>
>> > We can go on for months like this, the reality is there is NO unfair
>> > advantage if people are HONEST about the process.
>>
>>You are right this can go on and on and on, there is answers for each
>>one.
>
> Yes, and the SAME answer in each case.
>
>>It still remains that certain names have an advantage in the DNS over
>>others.
>
> Nope, not at all.  The only advantage is what is created in the market
> place in the consumers mind.
>
> If we never had com.au but instead had co.au are you telling me that
> com.au  would be better and we'd better open it now, or would the
> argument be over  co.au instead?  Ditto for ne.au instead of net.au.
>
> Are you telling me that they are the same, or one is better or worse?
>
> Which is worse and why?  Or is it a market perception?
>
>>You are protesting that we take people with ligimate claims to the
>>names they own and take them back giving them to larger corporate to
>>their favor.
>
> No, not at all.  I said forget the legacy issues.  As they expire and
> are  not renewed they can go into the pool, but the solution to solve
> the  scammers like ING and DDNS and INR etc is to give them no option
> but to  market ONLY the LEGALLY CORRECT domain name to the LEGALLY
> CORRECT registrant.
>
> Let me give you another example.  Who does/should this domain name
> belong to:
>
> wd.com.au
>
>
> ACN 099 491 399 REGD W.D. PTY LIMITED
> ACN 009 892 513 REGD W.D. INCORPORATED PTY. LTD.
> ACN 086 254 088 REGD WD CO PTY. LTD.
> ACN 093 115 112 REGD WD & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
> ACN 001 442 477 REGD *W & D (ADMINISTRATION) PTY LTD
> ACN 067 232 339 REGD W & D PTY LTD
> ACN 004 688 117 REGD W. & D. (SALES) PROPRIETARY LIMITED
>
> Who is MORE entitled that the other?  What if the LAST company tried to
>  register it now, and the first in four years?
>
> And lets see who currently owns it:
>
> domain:      wd.com.au
> descr:       Tasmania s Access Server Pty. Ltd.
> descr:       (ACN) 069 386 705
> descr:       (Business Name) The Web Designers
> descr:       (RBN) 117724B (TAS)
> descr:       GPO Box 935
> descr:       Hobart
> descr:       TAS 7001
> admin-c:     LH845-AU
> tech-c:      RA18-AU
> zone-c:      LH845-AU
> remarks:     Created 19990218
> changed:     nobody§aunic.net 20020130
> source:      AUNIC
>
>
>
>
> My goodness!  Nothing to do with the legally correct company holder at
> all!  I can see a major TRADE MARK dispute arising in the near future
> and  auDA and MIT wearing the cost of it, just like Network Solutions
> did, time  and time again.
>
>>  I find that unfair.
>
> I'm sure WD PTY LIMITED does too.  They can't register, under your own
> terms, their own legally correct domain name.  WHat are they going to
> register instead?
>
> thewebdesigners.com.au because it's the only alternative.
>
>>I know and deal with a lot of name holders that would and rightly so
>>sue if such a thing happened as years of building a company on a name
>>fall in the matter of change over..
>
> But they are building a company on a domain name they are not legally
> entitled to under Trade and Corporations Law.  If they register their
> companies with the correct name, they can use and identify by that
> name.
>
> Fall back to the LAW, not the assumption of rights.  We don't have
> RIGHTS  in Australia, we have LAW.
>
>> > The problem is the last 5 years the entire system has been abused to
>> > the hilt.
>>
>>Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.
>
> Nope, it's going to get worse, as shown above.  Because people will
> become  aware of their RIGHT under the policy as it stands and they
> WILL sue for  their names and YOUR clients will have to foot the bill
> in the battle.
>
> At the end of the day, when I'm called as an expert witness, I'll raise
> the  Judges attention to State and Commonwealth Naming laws as that is
> where  every trading person and entity must fall to.  There are NO
> exceptions.
>
>> > MIT have ripped everyone off since day one.  Connect.COM.AU charged
>> > with  managing NET.AU supposedly for NETWORK naming, started door to
>> > door street  sales selling any name anyone would buy.
>>
>>Well maybe in over charging but everyone.. the license fee is a bit
>>high but what is wrong with door to door sales.
>
> Nothing wrong with door to door sales, except they technically sold a
> NETWORK IDENTIFICATION product to consumer trading businesses.
>
> Are you saying I should be allowed to go to the pharmacy and obtain a
> dozen  packets of Panadine and sell it door to door?  Man, any kid in
> the street  will buy the stuff.
>
> Maybe I'll get a ritalin script and sell it to the kids at the local
> shops  in a crushed snorting format too.
>
>>I used to make a dollar and feed my self like that once upon a time.
>
> And I'm about to do door to door sales myself to promote a product I
> legitimately own and can do so.
>
> The problem was not the door to door sales, it was that they sold
> ANYTHING  that anyone wanted, whether it met LEGISLATIVE rights or not.
>
>>also I doute very much that they sold the name to anyone who would buy
>>with out having the policies filled..
>
> You sure about that?  I can dig up about 300 names without much effort
> if  you like.    What's even funnier is my wife's company gets invoices
> from  Connect from NET.AU names and we don't even own any!  Never have,
> and never  will.
>
>> > The problem is not in "com.au" being an unfair name, it's in the
>> > fact that  idiots go around and promote name space in an unfair
>> > manner.
>>
>>Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.
>
> But the new rules do NOT allow for the correct establishment of a name
> based on LEGISLATION that exists, it allows me to sell WD.COM.AU to
> anyone  with a W and a D in their name, whether it's a Company or not,
> or hell, go  and register some business name withe the letters in it.
>
> I might start registering strings of letters in random order, four or
> five  will probably do just fine and then, by your rules, I'll be
> entitled to  just about every possible combination of domain names in
> existence.
>
> Do you see a problem with this?
>
> I don't, it stops the legitimate trading names from registering and *I*
> get  their business.
>
>> > Gosh I use to have the number 482 1111 and got hundreds of daily
>> > calls for  481 1111.  Trying to sell the calls to Pizza hut failed
>> > so I sold them to  Domino's instead.  Is that an UNFAIR advantage?
>>
>>No... not sure what you are getting at... you had a good number and you
>>sold it.. well done.. some people may have told telstra to give them
>>another number.
>
> I didn't have a choice, I'd been advertising it too hard for too long
> to  give it away.
>
>>some may have started a making piazzas and others would have simply
>>unplugged the phone.
>
> We were tempted to go into the pizza business.  I did a few years
> later.
>
>> > Sadly this is true, and it's up to the supposed "self regulators" to
>> > solve  this problem.  However, instead of going to a little trouble
>> > and getting  some TV advertising space to EDUCATE the consumer, auDA
>> > will spend it money  on airfares, Christmas parties and other
>> > useless expenses.
>> >
>> > Or are you going to say auDA has NEVER paid for ANYONE'S airfare-
>> > EVER?
>>
>>Now here I totally agree and I can only feel that the auDA should have
>>been using funds to educate the market via TV, radio and Mail.. NOT
>>EMAIL..
>
> Well, I run a fully operational Film and TV production company.  Our
> TVC's  are great and as I have an interest in the DNS, I'm happy to
> come to a  deal.  I have over 400 actors on our database (growing every
> day) who would  be pleased to lend a hand.
>
> I can book TV air time for amazingly low prices and man you should see
> the  cinema screening costs!
>
> I'd be happy to come to a deal with auDA for say $1.10 per domain name
> as  an education ongoing cost.
>
>>This should have happened months prior to the go-live date..
>
> It's not going to happen because auDA people and ISPs spend their lives
>  online.  Since retiring from IT&T my life has changed.  I check my
> e-mail  once or twice a day.  I use to check it every 5 minutes.
>
> I actually meet people and talk to people and see daylight.  It's quiet
>  extraordinary.
>
> I've also discovered how little people know about their world and the
> things that happen around them, because they too are locked in their
> little  nooks.
>
> And have *I* discovered the power of TV advertising.  I've noticed even
>  some people on this list have responded to TVC's I've had involvement
> on.
>
> But then I'm into a full marketing a response process.  Education is a
> key  factor and most people do it badly.
>
>> > So is ABC Pty Limited for valuable than ABC (Registered in NSW) ??
>>
>>I'm not referring to the value of the company or business but the value
>>in having a good name can be to a business. (On paper ABC P/L is mroe
>>then ABC (NSW), socially ABC P/L may fall far behind the family run ABC
>>(nsw), value of a company can be argued in may way but is not what we
>>are debating)
>
> Why does the P/L fall behind the registered business name?  For a
> start,  you can only register one or the other.  Legally there are
> benefits for  both that oppose the other.
>
>> > And that's my solution.  NONE.  Because xyz.com.au is a company
>> > incorporated under corporations law and xyz.nsw.au is a trade name
>> > registered under the NSW Business Names Act.
>> >
>> > SIMPLE.  No confusion and there is NO conflict.
>>
>>We seem to go around in circles.. please read from the top to get my
>>thoughts.. there is a conflict that came about with state run name in a
>>commercial space.
>
> No conflict, I did the searches for you.
>
>>Take the .us domain space... they ran on state.us structure... not any
>>more.. after expensive reviews it was deemed not to be a good idea
>>because of confusion and dilution of the .us name space. This is what
>>you suggest will be doing to the .au...
>
> The .us state based name space was run by crocks.  It was totally
> discretionary and the policy was so limited it violated local state
> laws  anyway.  That's why the Government stepped in.
>
> Remember too, that in the USA, an incorporated company only has rights
> in  the STATE of incorporation in most cases.  Lets not look to the USA
> for  answers.
>
> Child Protection is an area we LOOKED to the USA and their system is a
> mess.  Children DIE in CPS care, in Florida last month more than 1000
> children who are supposed to be visited EACH week are MISSING from the
> system.  They are still looking this month to find 459 of the kids who
> have  "vanished" from Florida's CPS view.
>
> Lets look at our local laws only and the ones we have to work within.
> They  already exists, they are accepted by Corporate Australia and no
> one tries  to cheat it.
>
> News Limited is the only one entitled to NEWS.COM.AU under my
> suggestion,  however it's NOT entitled under the current policy.  It is
> ONE of many  entitled.
>
>>I'll leave it there as we could go on for ever and I think that most
>>will know where we are coming from.. both with our respective views.
>
> I think a lot of you need to actually get out of your office and look
> at  the corporate/business structure that has existed successfully and
> without  dispute in Australia for the last gosh, 50+ years.
>
> In the rush for "status" and political power, auDA and it's board and
> members have forgotten one thing - they have NO Government protection,
> they  are a private company incorporated under Corporations law and
> make a  perfect target for anyone willing to tackle it legally.
>
> It WILL happen.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.  (335 subscribers.)