[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:04:44 +1000
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Jon Lawrence
|> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:01 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Australia's luckiest man?
|> 
|> >Exactly.  You're beginning to understand what the 
|> Open-Slather-In-Drag 
|> >'close and substantial' clause really means.

Perhaps some better guidelines for applying the clause would make this more
objective and work as intended.
 
|> Well put, Ian.  Perhaps we could now consider removing this 
|> all-too-easily-avoided and therefore rather meaningless 
|> allocation policy.  It can't be enforced and is therefore by 
|> definition a bad policy.  

Disagree, I suggest strengthening the clause and making it so it can be
enforced.

|> Oh and could someone explain to me how registering generic 
|> (and thereby
|> un-trademarkable) words as domain names is cybersquatting?  
|> It's of course clearly no such thing.  Some would call it 
|> warehousing.  Most would consider it "a bad thing" (and I 
|> would tend to agree).  I would argue however that it is an 
|> unavoidable consequence of an open market.  

You may call it warehousing, others have called it good commercial sense, a
lot of us see it as cybersquatting.  If there isn't an intention to use the
name but only to sell it off to the highest bidder it is cybersquatting pure
and simple.

|> You can't control warehousing using the allocation policy, 
|> as has been proven over and over again.  You can't control 
|> it by limiting the number of domain names per ABN/ACN/RBN as 
|> people will simply register more business names.
|>  I can't think of any other way to control it that wouldn't 
|> have a significantly adverse impact on the hundreds of 
|> thousands of legitimate domain name holders in Australia.

The impact of opening up the market as you and others are advocating would
have an even more adverse impact.

|> As has been just pointed out, all the "good generic words" 
|> will be registered soon anyway and this will become a 
|> non-issue.  The allocation policy should therefore be 
|> removed in it's entirety as it simply adds an unnecessary 
|> step to the registration process which prevents complete 
|> automation of the registration process and therefore (IMHO) 
|> keeps the cost of .au domain names artificially high.  

Worried you wont get a chance at any?

I hold the opposite view, if it isn't working as intended, strengthen it and
make it work.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 
Received on Thu Oct 13 2005 - 10:04:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:16 UTC