RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

From: Larry Bloch <larry.bloch§>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:47:00 +1100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ian&#167;bluedoor [mailto:auda206§] 
> Sent: Friday, 25 March 2005 8:22
> To: dns&#167;
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules
> On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 01:17 AM, Larry Bloch wrote:
> > What I think Vic is articulating (and if so I agree) is 
> that we have 
> > to ensure policy serves the customer, not what armchair enthusiasts 
> > think customers want. From the front line, what we see is that:
> What are armchair enthusiasts?

Errr....everybody on this list for starters?

> >  - registrants don't understand the restrictions placed on 
> them by the
> > policy
> I think the australian public is quite aware of the 
> restrictions placed 
> on them. In fact many are unaware of how loose the policy is. I 
> personally can't see the difficulty of the "close and substantial" 
> clause. Just because a user wants a name it does not mean they should 
> automatically be entitled to it.

I suppose I meant 'understand' in the context of a sanity or reasonableness
test. Yes they understand what is required of them, but largely they fail to
understand why. It's subjective - just my call, not fact.

> for example I want The policy states I need a 
> reason as far as I am aware this is how it goes
> 1. I am paris hilton - accepted
> 2. I sell paris hilton videos - accepted
> 3. I want to run a site about paris hilton - denied/accepted 
> (this one 
> I am not sure about perhaps someone can explain)
> 4. I want to sit on the domain and sell it later - denied
> What is so difficult about that. If you "want" a name you must have a 
> reason so state it. Simple!
> Without the clause you are inviting speculators/squatters to step in. 
> Unfortunately as everyone states the horse has bolted, 
> however this is 
> partially due to registrars "bending" the registration rules in an 
> attempt to grab their market share as well as auda's unwillingness to 
> enforce it's own policies. Little self-governing going on there.

There are other mechanisms to deal with intellectual property right
infringements. Its not the role of policy or a regulator to make the call -
particularly as there is an entire spectrum of what is acceptable and what
is not. I agree its not black and white - it's a controversial issue and a
balance is needed - I think the balance is currently too restrictive and
would like to see the scales tipped a little towards openess (which to be
fair is exactly what is happening over time - just a little to slowly for my

> >  - they want names to be registered in real time
> No I believe the registrars prefer real time registrations as this 
> requires as little man power as possible. The more automated the 
> cheaper it gets. Automation can't happen with multiple variables like 
> "reasons" involved. The policy was sound, after all why have 
> a panel to 
> evaluate it in the first place, however as stated the 
> registrars pushed 
> for real time registrations which was the beginning of the 
> "loop holes".

If I buy something online, I want to know if I have it within seconds of
pushing "submit"

> >  - they see the policy as useless red tape for no practical benefit
> Aren't all policies :)
> >  - they want to be able to sell their names
> Apparently  you can already? It seems that "where there's a will 
> there's a way". Also registrars don't seem to make the process too 
> complicated. 
> Ian

The joys of a free society?

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC