[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

From: Ian Johnston <ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:35:53 +1000
> >Perhaps some better guidelines for applying the clause would make this
> > more objective and work as intended

The horse bolted a long time ago ...

A key recommendation and advice to the auDA Board in the Competition Panel's
Final Report related to (establishing) an independent body to approve
non-objective policy rules.  See my posting to this List in Dec 2001
<http://dotau.org/archive/2001-12/0060.html>.  I formally forwarded this
posting to the CEO of auDA on 19 December 2001.

The Panel recommendation was accepted by the auDA Board
<http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-09072001> (para 3), but no
independent body was established.

Ian Johnston

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+ian.johnston=infobrokers.com.au&#167;dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+ian.johnston=infobrokers.com.au&#167;dotau.org]
> On Behalf Of Jon Lawrence
> Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:36 PM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Australia's luckiest man?
> >Perhaps some better guidelines for applying the clause would make this
> > more 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
> 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
> 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
> >enforced.

... snip ...
Received on Fri Oct 14 2005 - 06:35:53 UTC

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