From: James Fiander <jfiander§>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:43:47 +1000
I concur with Kim... 50 emails about this is... NOT necessary!

James Fiander

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim&#167;]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:35 AM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: Re: [DNS] RE:

Quoting bw on Saturday September 21, 2002:
| No, I dont think the law (oops rule) should be in place,
| if wording is a way to avoid it, they will...
| why have such a rule in the first place?

Because Australia runs on a principle (that was reaffirmed last year
in public consultation) that domain names are given to those who
demonstrate their name (business name etc.) is connected with the domain
they are applying for, and there should be equitable access to such
domains for those that are eligible. If the domain is registered to an
entity on that basis, then it makes no sense for there to be a free
transfer of domains after registration, or to encourage a second-hand
resale/cybersquatting market.

Why don't you read through the historical documents that led to the
current policies? So far you don't seem to know anything about why
things are how they are - which makes it hard to take any of your
comments seriously (especially given the sheer number of emails you are
pushing out of little substance).


List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (361 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:06 UTC