It's difficult to come to terms with the .com.au policies although I commend
them for requiring ownership of the business name or otherwise to allocate the
relevant domain name...this is why we have virtually no cyber-squatting cases...much
to the blood thirsty Lawyers disgust...

And we all know that they are sitting on a fortune with their "generic" domains
list....how much would www.money.com.au be worth????.....the reason I was given
by INA why companies could register News.com.au was that the chap who was enforcing
the 'generic" rule was on holidays at the time...what a joke...why didn't they
take away their domain name...because the owners name ended in Murdock...mmmm..


We all know that if they ever released the "generic" domains that they would
go the those whose last name ends in Packer or Murdock...and us little fish
would not stand a chance in hell..

Whether INA likes it or not the business of Domain names is very much a BUSINESS....especially
in the .com world (although most of it is hype).....domains are the real estate
of the future and this applies to the .com.au domain as well...


>Simon..
>I wouldnt have thought for a second that what I proposed was something of
>originality in the scheme of things but I must point out something fairly
>relevant points:
>- the ltd.uk and co.uk is working for people.
>- the situation between now and '5' years ago has changed quite substancially.

>cheers
>Rohan
>
>
>At 08:14 AM 9/04/00 +0930, you wrote:
>>Easier, surely, to just modify the policy on com.au to straight 
>>first-come, first-served.
>>
>>I would suggest that this might be inevitable once competition is 
>>finally, at last, eventually, not a minute too soon, allowed to 
>>happen in the com.au domain name space, depending of course on the 
>>extent to which the existing registrar is prepared to cooperate with 
>>the agreed processes in this respect (and I live in hope, although I 
>>don't know why).
>>
>>The problem with '.co.au' is that it would add huge confusion to the 
>>existing situation where, like it or not, people kinda-understand 
>>that .com.au is the Australian realm version of .com
>>
>>Our understandings, here on this list, about allocation policies will 
>>never become publically understood. The public's entire interaction 
>>with the allocation system is likely to be limited, in general, to 'I 
>>want my name, and I want it now' - nothing to do with policy, 
>>everything to do with demand.
>>
>>I'll also note that I tried to introduce such a proposal, oh about 
>>five years ago now, called .biz.au (deliberately different to .com.au 
>>to avoid confusion between the two, which is what your suggestion may 
>>tend to cause, I'm afraid).
>>
>>Nothing happened. The processes in place to allow a new subdomain of 
>>.au were insufficiently formed to allow anyone to even consider the 
>>proposal (even though it was formulated in accordance with the 
>>'rules' at the time), and, quite literally, nothing happened. Nothing 
>>at all.
>>
>>I predict the same outcome in the case of your suggestion at this 
>>time too. The only way to be able to achieve change in this respect 
>>or in respect of the allocation policy in com.au is for auDA to be 
>>able to achieve workable practical control of the problem space, and 
>>then start doing things within in. Everything else degenerates to 
>>'wouldn't it be nice if...' and then dies. Trust me on this.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>>>I have private emailed to another member of this forum and am happy to
>>>share this thought for deliberation.
>>>
>>>The .com .net .org .co.uk domains and others do differ from how Australia

>>>has done ours. In the forementioned you do not neccessarily have to own a

>>>business name to enable the registration of the chosen domain - old news.

>>>There is good and bad in this method of processing, naturally.
>>>
>>>I see that there may be room to 'have your cake and eat it too' by
>>>introducing another 'level' of domain within Australia that allows
>>>'open-market' processes as is done in other countries such as the UK.
>>>
>>>By introducing a new level, such as 'domain.CO.au', a number of issues may

>>>be solved, yet it would depend on how it is packaged and differenciated to

>>>the market.
>>>
>>>Proposed:
>>>1 - .com.au remains positioned as a 'registered' Aust business/company
>level.
>>>
>>>2 - .co.au to be more open-market oriented.
>>>	- cheaper to purchase.
>>>	- no restrictions on naming policies.
>>>	- 3-4 companies to sell domain names (hence competition)
>>>	- domain names to be freely traded/auctioned.
>>>
>>>Now, before you right back (if you chose to) I know that some may have
>>>strong views against and I know that there are some holes in the
>>>forementioned. There may be some that may wish to add to the model too, so

>>>go for it.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Rohan
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without

>>>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>>>289 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)

>>>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§waia.asn.au to be removed.
>>
>>
>>---
>>Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
>>31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
>>Email: simon§internode.com.au  Web: http://www.on.net
>>Phone: +61-8-8223-2999          Fax: +61-8-8223-1777
>>
>>--
>>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>>289 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§waia.asn.au to be removed.
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>289 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§waia.asn.au to be removed.
>
>
>