> registration/transfer of a domain in the name of an entity which
> did not exist which is both a findamental breach of auDA's own rules

I recommend you read the rules carefully.  Under the "close and substantial
connection" policy, no specific entity is necessary to register a .au domain
name.  It is entirely possible that an entity which is a company could be
developing a new product or service, could apply for the domain name for
that product / service, and even if the company went out of business, an
entity associated with the company could continue with the product /
service, and be eligible for the domain.

This brings in a more complex issue of where the assets of the entity that
registered the domain name end up.



These issues has been discussed many times in many forums, including this
DNS list.  I fail to understand why people are either unwilling or incapable
of reading the relevant policy statements and thinking through the
implications.


Here is an extract from the policy documents:

"c) be otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant,
because the domain name refers to:
(i) a service that the registrant provides; or
(ii) a program that the registrant administers; or
(iii) an event that the registrant organises or sponsors; or
(iv) an activity that the registrant facilitates, teaches or trains; or
(v) a venue that the registrant operates; or
(vi) a profession that the registrant's members practise."


Under the existing policy, since entities can have multiple domain names as
long as they meet the eligibility policy, you don't have to have a company,
or have a business name, etc that matches the domain name.  You only need a
product or service, etc.

When you think through the issues of 'transferring' domain names from one
entity to another and realise that 'brands' (which are the products /
services that would be most likely to have domain names) get traded between
entities all the time - (e.g. Coca-Cola Amatil used to own Smiths Chips -
see www.smiths.com.au - and then sold it to United Biscuits who then sold
the brand later to Frito Lay) you realise that the best way to get the .au
domain name flexibility you need in the real world is to register the ones
you need for 'brands', and DON'T EVER register a .au domain name based on a
specific company or business name.  Okay?  Is that clear?



> Why when there is no clear association between a registrant and
> domain name is a registrar under no obligation to provide any
> person with a clear statement detailing the justification provided
> by the registrant at the time of registration?

1. Under the existing policy, an entity can apply for a domain name for a
product / service (think "Brand", OK).
2. Any company that in this day and age developed a "Brand Name" before also
making sure they had the matching domain name, would have to have rocks in
their head.
3. Since companies usually don't flag in advance to their competitors the
details of new products / services they have in development, they have every
right to insist that their plans are kept "commercial in confidence" and not
splashed all over the internet for the public to see.

This is all an INEVITABLE OUTCOME of the decision to allow multiple domain
names, and to allow domain names for products / services.  It was all
obvious, and foreseen (by some of us, at least) from the day that policy
decision was made.




Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
+61 4 1374 3959
www.pplications.com.au
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au