[DNS] auDA domain monetisation review

[DNS] auDA domain monetisation review

From: Sean K. Finn <Sean.Finn§ozservers.com.au>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:07:08 +1000


This is a bit weird, but after thinking about it, to use another
example, ansearch.com.au is the name of a company / search engine, which
IS their product. Parishilton.com.au on the other hand ISNT the name of
their search engine, even if they do provide search results for
parishilton, so they aren't eligible for that one by the below rules.


Likewise google is the name of a product as well as the company, which
is a search engine product, so relates 100% to their domain name.
spacely-sprockets.com.au however, would not relate directly to google
even if it was listed in googles directory.


But I agree, in trying to cut down on domain camping, it looks like the
wording gone nutty and overboard.


<Auda Bash>

b) the domain name must not be an entity name, personal name or brand
name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.


            Which basically means in order to be eligible for a domain
name, you have to be ineligible?


</Auda Bash>


Have we missed something?






4.2 In addition to their obligations under auDA Published Policies and
the Registrant Agreement (domain name licence), domainers must comply
with the following conditions of use:


a) the content on a monetised website must be related specifically and
predominantly to the domain name; and

b) the domain name must not be an entity name, personal name or brand
name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.



-       a literal reading of the above would lead one to conclude that
the registration of google.com.au would breach this clarification/policy
as it meets all the conditions of 2.1 but breaches both 4.2 (a) and (b).


I'm sure that is not the intention of the authors, but it does highlight
the complete absurdity of this clarification/policy.


Which brings me to my primary point, which is that it is clearly outside
of auDA's remit to make any judgement about whether a domain name
registration should be permitted on the basis of the (a) intended use
and (b) content of any website associated with that domain name, except
where proscribed by state or federal legislation (racist or other
offensive terms, use of the term "bank" etc etc).


Also, I'd like to hear how the intent of a registration can be
determined?  For bad faith registrations (eg cybersquatting,
typosquatting etc) there are already proven and cost-effective
mechanisms in place.  For anything else, registrants, as long as they
meet the eligibility criteria, should be able to register whatever
domain names they want.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20060721/4c68dab7/attachment.htm
Received on Thu Jul 20 2006 - 22:07:08 UTC

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