[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

From: Jon Lawrence <jon§jonlawrence.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:35:45 +0100
>Perhaps some better guidelines for applying the clause would make this
>objective and work as intended.

But it is by definition a subjective policy.  It is therefore impossible
to have uniform application of that policy.  You can write all the guidelines
you like to try to stop warehousing however as the reality has proven over
and over again it simply doesn't work.  Even if you move back to the "directly
derived" rule that used to apply it still doesn't work.  All the way back
to 1999 and probably before there were companies registering hundreds of
domain names under this highly restrictive version of this policy using
separate RBNs which just happened to include all the letters of the domain
name they wanted in the right order.  The only reason they didn't register
all the generic names back then was that they were reserved.  That particular
restriction has of course now been removed.

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


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

No.  Cybersquatting and warehousing are separate issues.  There are clearly
defined and to date reasonably effective mechanisms in place for dealing
with cybersquatting that do not require upfront vetting by the registrar.

Dictionary.com defines cybersquatting as "The practice of registering famous
brand names as Internet domain names, e.g. harrods.com, ibm.firm or sears.shop,
in the hope of later selling them to the appropriate owner at a profit."
 This definition dates from 1998 (as is clear from the TLD references).

If it's a generic word then there is no IP rights to the name therefore
it's not cybersquatting.

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

Why? On whom?  Let's not forget that 99.9% of domain name registrants are
totally legitimate Australian businesses trying to market themselves in
the most cost-effective manner.  It is (IMHO) not in the public interest
to have artificial restrictions on registrations simply to try to police
the 0.1% of operators who wish to conduct businesses based on the resale
of domain names which they perceive to have some intrinsic value, when there
is nothing inherently illegal about that activity.  I don't particularly
like domain warehousing as a business model but I just don't see any legitimate
reason for proscribing it.  Also, as I think has been proven over and over
again, generic domain names really aren't a particularly effective way to
build a brand and market a business, so I don't think this issue is as significant
as many people would suggest it is.

>Worried you wont get a chance at any?

Please.  I have registered two .au domain names ever and currently have
one active and it's not even a .com.au.  As you can see, I use a .com for
my email address.  I would use the .com.au version if it were cost-effective
for me to do so.  I don't accept that there are legitimate reasons why a
.com.au domain name should cost any more than a .com and I believe the allocation
policy is part of the reason why they do.  That's my agenda.

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

Again, how?

Received on Thu Oct 13 2005 - 12:35:45 UTC

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