David Goldstein wrote:
>
> au: Dot com name dilemma
> The Augusta-Margaret River Tourism Association is in
> danger of losing its .com internet address under a
> Federal Government plan to release geographic names
> via a domain name ballot.
> 
> http://margaretriver.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=401402&y=2005&m=6

I am dumbfounded where they come up with the "facts" in this article. 
How can Margaret River possibly lose margaretriver.com because of an 
auDA policy change? The fact that such mistruths are represented as 
news, and ends up with politicians rallying to do something about it, is 
not helpful.

Here are just some of the falsehoods in the article, but the whole 
argument of the article falls apart when the underlying premise is faulty:

#1 That AMRTA could possibly lose margaretriver.com through any action
    of auDA
#2 That it is a federal government plan
#3 That there was a restriction on geographic names like
    margaretriver.com before
#4 That the loss would have "critical consenquences" (it relies on the
    premise of #1 to be true)
#5 The claim that "another company [could get] the rights to the domain
    address." The only way AMRTA could lose margaretriver.com is through
    their negligence (e.g. not paying the bill for it), or by losing a
    dispute resolution process whereby someone else proves they have
    registered margaretriver.com in bad faith (i.e. extremely unlikely)

(cc'd to the newspaper in question)

kim