Let me give another example to address your first question that I've
quoted below.  cdnow.com.au - If I'm ever able to conduct business with CD
Now (RBN NSW V0010309), known as Cattle Dogs Now on their web site then I
will eat the keyboard I've typed this e-mail on.  You don't think this
domain might be of interest to the CD Now online music retailer of America
who plan to expland into Australia.

This domain is in no way hurting any individual, nor is it misleading
(it's not selling CD's to anyone), but can anyone really argue that this
domain and business name were registered for the intent of holding
CDnow.com to financial ransom?  To an online retailer, their name is their
single point of contact.  This is pure speculation on my part, but very
interesting all the same.

Another interesting point to the above example is Brendan Yell (owner of
cdnow.com.au) has already made Australian media headlines for a successful
sale of a domain name for a substancial sum of money.  The domain name
slips my mind at present.

I agree with Section 3.2 as you've quoted.  In a previous position as
System Administrator with an ISP I have acted on behalf of many
organisations who this policy applied to.  And they have registered
multiple domains for different business names with legitimate reason.

If a business name is registered for the purpose of registering a domain
that will be in future demand.  This is how I define cyber-squatting. If I
register a business name in order to register the .com.au domain which I
know someone will pay big money for, technically I have rightful ownership
of that domain.  But it's my intent that would be questionable.

What would the effect of additional policy which stated the orginal owner
of a domain must remain owner of that domain for 5 years?  Just a thought,
one that I'll let others comment on as my tired brain has had enough for
tonight! :)

________ Craig ___ craig§cac.nu ___ www.cac.nu/~craig _________
        Stress is when you wake up screaming, and then
        you realize that you haven't fallen asleep yet
  

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark Davidson wrote:

[snip]

> A question: why should a person's motive for registering a domain name
> should be relevant? To me, the real question is whether the action hurts
> another person (in which case, intention may not be very relevant at
> all).

[snip]

> > I agree with the .com.au policy in regards to ACN and business names.
> 
> Do you agree with section 3.2? (it's quoted below; and available at
> http://www.ina.com.au/policy/policyfr.html)
> 
> As at 2/12/99, section 3.2 says:
> 
> "3.2 Single Domain Name per Commercial Entity
>         Only one domain name is licensed per registered commercial name.
>         Organizations with more than one registered commercial name (for example,
>         a company with several registered trading names) can apply for one com.au
>         domain name for each registered trading name."

[snip]

> It's not too hard to *create* a business without doing too much - if I
> do that does that mean I am no longer a "cyber-squatter"? The domain
> name disputes where the "squatter" loses tend to be sitiuations where
> the other party owns a trade mark or is being harmed in some way by the 
> domain "squatter" - the other examples tend to look a bit like the "NDC"
> example Craig mentioned but I suspect some of them involved people who
> were really angling for the profits from sale of the domain name (a la
> a "real" cyber-quatter) rather than just going
> about their business as I assume the owner of ndc.com.au is doing.
> 
> If I buy [someone else's product/trade mark].com.au and I do not put up
> a site at all, but wait to sell it to someone, why shouldn't I be
> allowed to own that domain name? One answer is that its use may infringe
> "someone else's" trade mark rights (assuming we allow the someone else
> has an extensive reputation in the product/trade mark in Australia) -
> but if that is the case, [someone else] can do something about it. And
> if there are no rights being infringed, why should [someone else] have
> the right to stop me owning that domain? Why should society do [someone
> else's] thinking for them - they can go and register the domain if they
> want it; if not, and assuming I'm not infringing rights or misleading
> someone, then I should be able to register the domain.