>_From: Stephen Gillies
> 
>  vic you're missing the point im afraid. the nature of the DNS is it
>  will never be a system for finding a company on the internet and
>  that's that. it. finito. listen to kre. he _knows_.

no *you* have missed the point. the restrictions/censorship on
elligibility for .com.au are _totaly_ unrelated to search issues.

dns is there to convert names to IPs, users should choose the names
that they want, not be shoehorned through a set of arbitrary restrictions,
impossed on them by random people.

its called freedom of choice.

something that our overregulated dns system needs a goodly injection of.



>  even throwing the rules out the window and letting first come first 
>  served will not solve anything because there are companies called the
>  same things in different industries. mcdonalds make warm burgers and 
>  fries but another macdonalds make aircraft.

it will solve several important issue:
that of the right of people to choose there own names.
the removal of conflict between end users and ISPs and the registries
over name requests. 

thats more then enough justification to let the new registries
decide for themselves what they should do.

the current rules are more suited to a socialist regime then a free
democratic country.


>  the rules are there to make the choice of domain name easier, not harder.

sure any colour so long as its black.

>  is it too much to ask that the domain name for a company is made
>  up of the name of that company? 

yes it is. beyond a shadow of a doubt it is too much to ask. you can
recomend it but you cant enforce it.

clients bypass this silliness by filling the business name space
with business names that "exist so I can bypass the MIT rules".

this is a very clear message to the dns czars that there is something
seriously wrong with .au qualifying rules.



>  as for searching for names, isnt having a domain name a little like
>  a street address? i mean, if I was selling hunting goods in Sydney, would
>  I be justified in getting all upset about not being able to have
>  my store on Hunter Street because all the shops in hunter street are
>  taken by people who sell computer hardware, banking services and
>  florists? 

this analogy is not even wrong.

Vic