George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> Peter, am I right in reading your proposal as meaning that if I secure
> "Peters Pizza" as a registered name, and lodge pizza.com.au that it would
> meet guidelines? I think thats a disastrously silly outcome and would
> basically legitemate pizza.com.au class namegrabs and all that implies.
> 
> I don't think Jan17 is a realistic timeframe to assess the implications
> of that kind of shift in policy, and I ernestly suggest that level of
> change should be delayed until a more mature procedure is in place.
> 
> In that context, under the IAHC emerging guidelines surely we need to
> see com.au transit to distributd management under a suitable policy framework
> before we can make that kind of decision?
> 
> cheers
>         -George

George

My proposal to amend the naming policy may well need fine-tuning, to
avoid undesirable outcomes. However the current policy also delivers
demonstrably quite unfair outcomes.

You obviously object to the use of generic product names such as "pizza"
as Third Level Domain Names.  But why should the Ford motor company be
penalised because its company name is also a generic common noun [ford]?
Or Hills of Hills Hoists fame? Or Brambles? Or Apple? Or Digital? ....

Perhaps it is better to allow one out of a thousand Australian
pizza-vendors to secure the name pizza, than to deny companies who have
already traded for several years to use their own business names as
their domain names. 

Concerning your request to wait until a new governance structure is in
place, it seems to me that the naming policy for COM.AU should be
refined and improved now,  quite independently of whether it is to be
administered by a single authority or by a "distributed management" in
the future. The more important principle is that the naming policy
should be administered in a uniform and fair manner.  The current policy
is arguably not fair to some businesses.

Regards
PG