>> Failure to meet this is restrictive trade and is written in the Trade
>> Practices Act.
>
>  I think this needs to be clarified as a matter of some
>  importance as the goal in mind will be achieved if the issue
>  can be articulated and made relevant to Law. 

I really think if we all agreed that the majority of DN's were portable and
there is no real reason as to why all can not be, then the case wodul be
won fairly simply.

A modem company in 1989 released a Fax Software package as FREEWARE with
their modems.  Problem was it use ATI commands to ensure it was being used
with one of their modems.  When people send the software to friends to use,
it wouldn't work.  They were told to purchase XYZ modem by the software
people.

Several people investigated the software and found it was using the ATI
commands, reverse engineering showed what it looked for and we had a case.

It was won and the software was required to be sent to EVERYONE who had it
at the manufactures cost with no limitations.

I'm sure in essence, although this is a SPECIFIC example, the law in it's
own right causes question to what Restrictive use of a DOMAIN NAME is.

>We are currently trying to articulate the issue. It has been
>hard. I hope an ACCC member is reading, though they probably have
>toasted their minds by now. 

As I've said before the ACCC is well aware of the matters relating to DNS.
I don't feel I'm at liberty to discuss any more than to say that they are
aware.

Don't give them a hard time or say negative things or they might just
decide not to bother working with US, but in the benefit of the consumer only.

>Why write in your original reply 
>
>"In short, I guess I agree.  But..."

Because, I am required as a sensible and logical person to put forward the
oppositions thoughts.

When you tackle a court case, you don't build the case in your favour, you
build you case against what you want.  Hopefully youy will cover everything
and win the case.

>...and have us go through all that agony because of your 'devil's
>advocate' line, only to come back to where we should have been

Because YOU MUST ANSWER the questions and build the oppositions argument
before you tackle the opponent. 

We here all agree. But *WE* are infintesimal in comparision to OzEmail.

>> It will over time sort itself out, like any inductry issue.  It's a shame
>> many have to be burnt first to educate the rest.
>
>I disagree. I don't want to sit back. But maybe I've misread you
>you because...

I didn't say sit back, if we are all prepared to work it forward in a
consumer oriented manner.

There have been many already burnt, and badly.  (Matter subject to current
investigation.)

>> Forget Local.  Global ... fix it globally.
>
>And we move on...

Not much to do once you fix it globally :)

But lets not come up with a local only solution, because Internet isn't
local -  is it.  And the International effects will always have
ramifications on what we do locally.

So lets work on what's happening internationally and apply it locally.

>> Don't forget however that AOL sells names under AOL.COM and they are as I
>> understand non portable also.
>
>Yes, but we have no problem if they are upfront and besides, we
>don't _expect_ <advisory mode on> portability within the isp's
>own authoritive zone... (this could lead into some further ideas
>perhaps). 

Sure, I must however question whether AOL in fact provide these names as
part of their own zone or as a marketable product for generic use.  I'm
unsure, perhaps someone with some time to explore AOL's unending site can
find something that might help.

But of course, we have agreed that ISP specific DN's aren't really ment to
be portable.  So we are happy.  But investigate it anyway.  We might learn
something.  

Perhaps someone could write to AOL asking what happens when a clietn leaves
AOL to another provider.

>'general perception' might assume that delegation of subdomains
>of an 'isp's own' domain is unlikely. But, to the non technical,
>it might be hard to see why not, given that other subdomains are
>portable. And the very assumption of 'obviously not' by the
>technically informed is a mistake.

Yes. But in the same way you don't expect to find PEPSI in a Coke bottle.

>Point is, and maybe I could have made a better case of it, the
>'badge' that advertises portability or non-portability, if
>applied to _all_ subdomains, will serve the purposes of the
>argument.

Ahh now this is interesting.   We could encourage SLD Vendors to use an
ICON, that is recognised by all vendors and ISPs indicating whether their
SLD is portable or not?

I know many hundreds of sights are using the AURSC logo now.  Far more than
I think are using AURSC in fact.

>How this would be implemented is another matter.

I've suggested one option.

>I'm not proposing a technical implementation, but perhaps that could
>be food for thought.

Keep thinking - the perfect answer is there - somewhere.

>Please don't forget we're still talking about a code of ethics,
>or watchdogging as a solution. I'll leave any takers to suggest
>or dismiss any technical possibilities... 

I'd hate to be the watchdog.  From the experience the ACCC and I are having
this week, no matter how much you watch, you still can't see it all.

Ethics - I have to question that too at this stage.  Certainly the "ethics"
of many ISP's towards other ISP's is less than desirable.  I think ispeak
from adequate experience.

Technical - I think that's too big a field to tackle to be honest.  The
Consumer needs education.  That in effect means support form the media or
paid media.

>> YES.  I'm all for it.
>
>My Man! (for now...)

:)  Sometimes we'll agree totally, other times we won't, that makes for
good solutions if we keep the common goal in mind.