At 6:56 PM 23/12/96, George Michaelson wrote:
>I think whats wanted is a process which permits ford to have their name
>but excludes speculative investment in generic forms as a traded or valued
>thing in itself.

I'm sorry, but I will ask this question. WHY? Why it is necessary to exclude
speculative investment in generic names? Why is it necessary to exclude
trading in names? Is there a sound technical reason? Is there a sound
public policy reason? What exactly is the the evil problem which this is attempting
to avoid?

Discussing "policies" in com.au is well and good, but I'll repeat my last email -
unless there is a clear reason of why ANY policies at all are necessary, and
therefore a clear understanding of the objectives of such a policy and
broad _acceptance_ of the wisdom of such objectives than this whole
exercise does not make an awful lot of sense.

Now I am attempting to be constructive here, by pushing this to a more basic
examination of what the problem is before rushing into solution space - so
this should not be construed as being a value comment on George's
view  - but it was a useful comment to springboard from!

  cheers,

   Geoff


-- 
Geoff.Huston§telstra.net

Network Technical Manager    Locked Bag 5744,
Telstra Internet             Canberra  ACT  2601
                             AUSTRALIA

ph  +61 6 208 1908
fax +61 6 248 6165


-----------------------
And as a quick postscript  ....

Copyright of the original material in this message is asserted by Geoff Huston
Permission to reproduce those parts of this message authored by Geoff Huston, in whole or in part, in
any medium other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner.
-----------------------