On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Rowe, Joshua wrote:

> http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/industry/20000405/A50429-2000Apr5.html
> 

Re this item above its long been apparent to me the
term 'cyber squatting' is over used. Why should buy.com
condsider they already own buy.com.au and why should
the owners of buy.com.au be forced to give it up?

This is not a case of cyber squatting at all but a
commercial problem for anyone wishing to set
up in another country. Some smarties think that all they
have to do is licence a US 'brand' for Australia, no
value add, no innovation, no smarts and worst of
all think that they already own the .com.au name.

And if you read the article they talk about the
value of generic domain names and mention a few
(like buy.com.au, sold.com.au etc) which is great
but the policy of Melbourne IT has always been 
to block this ability. When is a policy not
a policy? Why is sold.com.au not generic when
(for example) maps.com.au is and has been refused?

The policy is a joke when the the big money players
are taking out generic names everyday but most of the
market is locked out under their 'policy'.

doug