>Example
>
>LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY 004224364
>LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY (Registered charity.)

ACN 079 815 697 REGD LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HEALTH CARE LIMITED VIC 
B1469489D REGD THE LITTLE COMPANY ACN 004 218 857 REGD LITTLE'S PROPRIETARY 
LIMITED ACN 004 224 364 REGD THE CORPORATION OF THE LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY 
ACN 072 042 089 REGD THE LITTLE COMPANY RETREAT PTY. LTD. ACN 001 290 722 
REGD J H LITTLE & CO PTY LTD QLD BN2150128 REGD L.G. LITTLE & CO QLD 
BN6587550 REGD TLC THE LITTLE COMPANY NSW M5784009 REGD TREVOR LITTLE AND 
CO ACN 062 381 739 REGD *LITTLE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. ACN 003 119 220 REGD 
LITTLE & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

I'm sorry I don't see it there.

And it's not a registered charity:

Laura Johnson Home
Learing for all
Learning Links
Legacy Club of Adelaide Inc.
Leo & Jenny Leukaemia and Cancer Foundation
Leprosy Mission
Leukaemia Foundation of Australia Limited
Leukaemia Research & Support Fund
Lord Mayor's Charitable Fund
Lort Smith Animal Hospital
Lost Dog's Home


So it's a mute point.  I'm not interested in Hypothetical, I asked you to 
provide me with an example of a company/business that had the exact same 
registered name as a charity that was not common with board or proprietors.

>Who gets the name here... why should either be restricted to use LCM in
>referring to their company?
>Or

Neither because it will never conflict due to LEGISLATION.

>Should they be restricted to referring to there respective organisations as
>
>LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.nsw.au
>LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.org.au

NO, because THE SAME name can not be registered as BOTH due to LEGISLATION.

Not sure I'm getting through here.  We're talking about REGISTRATION 
through LEGISLATION not "making up names and registering a domain name 
which is not legislated or government managed."

>What gives the business more right over the state name.

None, because if there was a charity registered as LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY, 
then the registration of the business name or company would be rejected.

That is because Business/Company/Charity names are managed under LEGISLATION

> > All three registries are managed by the NSW Department of Fair Trading.
> >  As  such, the data is contained in one register and only UNIQUE
> > non-conflicting  names can be created.
>
>There are similar names and I am presuming that you are suggesting that
>the rules would mean that you have to get your full registered name
>.nsw.au and you have no choice.

Yes, why not?

>  NSW BN97760386 THE DOMAIN NAME MACYOURDAY
>  NSW BN97762066 THE DOMAIN NAME MCD
>  NSW U5604003 DOMAIN NAME SERVICES

Great so they are entitled to their nsw.au name registration.  If they want 
a SHORTER domain name, they should think about a SHORTER business name, or 
a trademark, in which case a 2LD for trade marks can be opened as well.

Now there would be NO conflict between a Business Name and a Trade mark - 
at least in theory.

>I see no reason why all the three above have same right to use
>domainnameservices.com.au or even nsw.au

Only the last one has the right, the others have additional words that 
IDENTIFY themselves.

The LAW says you must clearly and accurately IDENTIFY yourself and TRADE 
under  the name that you have REGISTERED, not an abbreviation or variation 
of the name.

The law says that if you trade or identify yourself using any name other 
than your OWN PERSONAL NAME then you are trading illegally and eligible for 
a $25,000 fine.

Where is the CONFUSION?

The LEGISLATION exists.  Does auDA see itself as having a higher status 
than that of the LAW that existed LONG before it and the DNS did?

Why RE-CREATE a wheel that has been tried and tested and has no argument?

That was my argument all along. More than 5 years ago.

> > So there is STILL no conflict (except assn's and charities across
> > multiple  states, but come on, surely we have enough brain power to
> > even solve that one?)
>
>Well yes, but your now saying that asn's and org's that only run in NSW or
>VIC have no rights to the nsw.au or vic.au names, when it can be seen very
>clearly that they do.

Ok, so allow them either way, but they need only ONE registration, not TWO, 
or TEN or 55.  Or make it automatic that those who qualify for other name 
space get that name space.  For goodness sake it costs next to nothing to 
run and administer DNS.  This is the Norties, not the 50's.

> >>Who has the right to the name, why does a business have more propritity
> >>right to use the state name than an charity or even an association?
> >
> > That point is mute as noted above.
>
>You may think that it's mute, when I can only see that your suggestion
>outs us under lock and key, stifling, marketing, forward thinking business
>plans and creative personal sites.

It doesn't stifle the market except for those who want to sell the same 
service 20 times to the poor sucker who doesn't understand any of it 
because they are sold the line "If you don't register these names TODAY, 
you will have your identity stolen."  That's CRAP and you ALL know it, 
including the scammers.

>We do not need to be told to the point of no choice.

But you already are!  If you TRADE under an abbreviation of your company 
name,  you ARE trading in contravention of CORPORATIONS LAW.  There is no 
"choice" there, it's already set.

If you want to argue about derivatives of company and business names, take 
it up with your state agency or ASIC.  Not me or the DNS.

IT'S LAW.  Not CHOICE.

>  choice is our right, internet a freedom

No, Internet is not a freedom since the inception of ICANN and auDA.

Certainly not since the majority of people in Australia still can't access it.

You have to remember I come from an era in the late 1980's where I provided 
Internet e-mail and other services FREE of charge to around 2000 people in 
Australia across multiple capital cities.  It didn't cost much to do, well, 
ok, my company absorbed the cost, we only allowed our non productive time 
to the consumers.

>and one that we
>should not stagnate with a ball a chain to those who want to use it.

Registering domain names as a commercial identity is not a ball and chain, 
the ball and chain already exists in:

Corporations Law
Business Names Act
Charities Act
Associations Act
etc

Follow the established route and improve on it, however auDA sees fit to 
create a nightmare it's not really prepared for in the future. I forewarn, 
as I did in 1996/7, that auDA will suffer the consequence of creating a 
system of rules that are diametrically opposite that of the legislation 
which governs the land.

>It can be said that it does matter though. Getting people to remember your
>number is the key. Easier to see the 123... and recogonise what you saw
>that backwards...

I totally agree, so why not register a company name "12345678 PTY Limited" 
and the SUE Telstra for the number - after all, it's your LEGAL right?

Or are you saying that not all things are equal and we really don't have a 
choice in everything?  (refer above your comments on choice and freedoms.)

> > Does having a fruit shop on the corner of Archer and Victoria Avenue
> > have  some advantage over one in Chatswood Chase?
>
>Don't know that area, but it can be said that a specific corner or peace
>of real estate has a definite advantage over another. Some have more and
>some have less.

Well, there you are wrong.  There is no parking, great exposure, probably 
why Centerlink occupy the site.  Parking is at Westfield and Chatswood 
Chase.  So why get an nice sunny outdoor site if the consumer isn't going 
to walk in, but only drive past.

> > We can go on for months like this, the reality is there is NO unfair
> > advantage if people are HONEST about the process.
>
>You are right this can go on and on and on, there is answers for each one.

Yes, and the SAME answer in each case.

>It still remains that certain names have an advantage in the DNS over
>others.

Nope, not at all.  The only advantage is what is created in the market 
place in the consumers mind.

If we never had com.au but instead had co.au are you telling me that com.au 
would be better and we'd better open it now, or would the argument be over 
co.au instead?  Ditto for ne.au instead of net.au.

Are you telling me that they are the same, or one is better or worse?

Which is worse and why?  Or is it a market perception?

>You are protesting that we take people with ligimate claims to the names
>they own and take them back giving them to larger corporate to their
>favor.

No, not at all.  I said forget the legacy issues.  As they expire and are 
not renewed they can go into the pool, but the solution to solve the 
scammers like ING and DDNS and INR etc is to give them no option but to 
market ONLY the LEGALLY CORRECT domain name to the LEGALLY CORRECT registrant.

Let me give you another example.  Who does/should this domain name belong to:

wd.com.au


ACN 099 491 399 REGD W.D. PTY LIMITED
ACN 009 892 513 REGD W.D. INCORPORATED PTY. LTD.
ACN 086 254 088 REGD WD CO PTY. LTD.
ACN 093 115 112 REGD WD & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
ACN 001 442 477 REGD *W & D (ADMINISTRATION) PTY LTD
ACN 067 232 339 REGD W & D PTY LTD
ACN 004 688 117 REGD W. & D. (SALES) PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Who is MORE entitled that the other?  What if the LAST company tried to 
register it now, and the first in four years?

And lets see who currently owns it:

domain:      wd.com.au
descr:       Tasmania s Access Server Pty. Ltd.
descr:       (ACN) 069 386 705
descr:       (Business Name) The Web Designers
descr:       (RBN) 117724B (TAS)
descr:       GPO Box 935
descr:       Hobart
descr:       TAS 7001
admin-c:     LH845-AU
tech-c:      RA18-AU
zone-c:      LH845-AU
remarks:     Created 19990218
changed:     nobody§aunic.net 20020130
source:      AUNIC




My goodness!  Nothing to do with the legally correct company holder at 
all!  I can see a major TRADE MARK dispute arising in the near future and 
auDA and MIT wearing the cost of it, just like Network Solutions did, time 
and time again.

>  I find that unfair.

I'm sure WD PTY LIMITED does too.  They can't register, under your own 
terms, their own legally correct domain name.  WHat are they going to 
register instead?

thewebdesigners.com.au because it's the only alternative.

>I know and deal with a lot of name holders that would and rightly so sue
>if such a thing happened as years of building a company on a name fall in
>the matter of change over..

But they are building a company on a domain name they are not legally 
entitled to under Trade and Corporations Law.  If they register their 
companies with the correct name, they can use and identify by that name.

Fall back to the LAW, not the assumption of rights.  We don't have RIGHTS 
in Australia, we have LAW.

> > The problem is the last 5 years the entire system has been abused to
> > the hilt.
>
>Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.

Nope, it's going to get worse, as shown above.  Because people will become 
aware of their RIGHT under the policy as it stands and they WILL sue for 
their names and YOUR clients will have to foot the bill in the battle.

At the end of the day, when I'm called as an expert witness, I'll raise the 
Judges attention to State and Commonwealth Naming laws as that is where 
every trading person and entity must fall to.  There are NO exceptions.

> > MIT have ripped everyone off since day one.  Connect.COM.AU charged
> > with  managing NET.AU supposedly for NETWORK naming, started door to
> > door street  sales selling any name anyone would buy.
>
>Well maybe in over charging but everyone.. the license fee is a bit high
>but what is wrong with door to door sales.

Nothing wrong with door to door sales, except they technically sold a 
NETWORK IDENTIFICATION product to consumer trading businesses.

Are you saying I should be allowed to go to the pharmacy and obtain a dozen 
packets of Panadine and sell it door to door?  Man, any kid in the street 
will buy the stuff.

Maybe I'll get a ritalin script and sell it to the kids at the local shops 
in a crushed snorting format too.

>I used to make a dollar and feed my self like that once upon a time.

And I'm about to do door to door sales myself to promote a product I 
legitimately own and can do so.

The problem was not the door to door sales, it was that they sold ANYTHING 
that anyone wanted, whether it met LEGISLATIVE rights or not.

>also I doute very much that they sold the name to anyone who would buy 
>with out having the policies filled..

You sure about that?  I can dig up about 300 names without much effort if 
you like.    What's even funnier is my wife's company gets invoices from 
Connect from NET.AU names and we don't even own any!  Never have, and never 
will.

> > The problem is not in "com.au" being an unfair name, it's in the fact
> > that  idiots go around and promote name space in an unfair manner.
>
>Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.

But the new rules do NOT allow for the correct establishment of a name 
based on LEGISLATION that exists, it allows me to sell WD.COM.AU to anyone 
with a W and a D in their name, whether it's a Company or not, or hell, go 
and register some business name withe the letters in it.

I might start registering strings of letters in random order, four or five 
will probably do just fine and then, by your rules, I'll be entitled to 
just about every possible combination of domain names in existence.

Do you see a problem with this?

I don't, it stops the legitimate trading names from registering and *I* get 
their business.

> > Gosh I use to have the number 482 1111 and got hundreds of daily calls
> > for  481 1111.  Trying to sell the calls to Pizza hut failed so I sold
> > them to  Domino's instead.  Is that an UNFAIR advantage?
>
>No... not sure what you are getting at... you had a good number and you
>sold it.. well done.. some people may have told telstra to give them
>another number.

I didn't have a choice, I'd been advertising it too hard for too long to 
give it away.

>some may have started a making piazzas and others would have simply 
>unplugged the phone.

We were tempted to go into the pizza business.  I did a few years later.

> > Sadly this is true, and it's up to the supposed "self regulators" to
> > solve  this problem.  However, instead of going to a little trouble and
> > getting  some TV advertising space to EDUCATE the consumer, auDA will
> > spend it money  on airfares, Christmas parties and other useless
> > expenses.
> >
> > Or are you going to say auDA has NEVER paid for ANYONE'S airfare- EVER?
>
>Now here I totally agree and I can only feel that the auDA should have
>been using funds to educate the market via TV, radio and Mail.. NOT
>EMAIL..

Well, I run a fully operational Film and TV production company.  Our TVC's 
are great and as I have an interest in the DNS, I'm happy to come to a 
deal.  I have over 400 actors on our database (growing every day) who would 
be pleased to lend a hand.

I can book TV air time for amazingly low prices and man you should see the 
cinema screening costs!

I'd be happy to come to a deal with auDA for say $1.10 per domain name as 
an education ongoing cost.

>This should have happened months prior to the go-live date..

It's not going to happen because auDA people and ISPs spend their lives 
online.  Since retiring from IT&T my life has changed.  I check my e-mail 
once or twice a day.  I use to check it every 5 minutes.

I actually meet people and talk to people and see daylight.  It's quiet 
extraordinary.

I've also discovered how little people know about their world and the 
things that happen around them, because they too are locked in their little 
nooks.

And have *I* discovered the power of TV advertising.  I've noticed even 
some people on this list have responded to TVC's I've had involvement on.

But then I'm into a full marketing a response process.  Education is a key 
factor and most people do it badly.

> > So is ABC Pty Limited for valuable than ABC (Registered in NSW) ??
>
>I'm not referring to the value of the company or business but the value in
>having a good name can be to a business. (On paper ABC P/L is mroe then
>ABC (NSW), socially ABC P/L may fall far behind the family run ABC (nsw),
>value of a company can be argued in may way but is not what we are
>debating)

Why does the P/L fall behind the registered business name?  For a start, 
you can only register one or the other.  Legally there are benefits for 
both that oppose the other.

> > And that's my solution.  NONE.  Because xyz.com.au is a company
> > incorporated under corporations law and xyz.nsw.au is a trade name
> > registered under the NSW Business Names Act.
> >
> > SIMPLE.  No confusion and there is NO conflict.
>
>We seem to go around in circles.. please read from the top to get my
>thoughts.. there is a conflict that came about with state run name in a
>commercial space.

No conflict, I did the searches for you.

>Take the .us domain space... they ran on state.us structure... not any
>more.. after expensive reviews it was deemed not to be a good idea because
>of confusion and dilution of the .us name space. This is what you suggest
>will be doing to the .au...

The .us state based name space was run by crocks.  It was totally 
discretionary and the policy was so limited it violated local state laws 
anyway.  That's why the Government stepped in.

Remember too, that in the USA, an incorporated company only has rights in 
the STATE of incorporation in most cases.  Lets not look to the USA for 
answers.

Child Protection is an area we LOOKED to the USA and their system is a 
mess.  Children DIE in CPS care, in Florida last month more than 1000 
children who are supposed to be visited EACH week are MISSING from the 
system.  They are still looking this month to find 459 of the kids who have 
"vanished" from Florida's CPS view.

Lets look at our local laws only and the ones we have to work within. They 
already exists, they are accepted by Corporate Australia and no one tries 
to cheat it.

News Limited is the only one entitled to NEWS.COM.AU under my suggestion, 
however it's NOT entitled under the current policy.  It is ONE of many 
entitled.

>I'll leave it there as we could go on for ever and I think that most will
>know where we are coming from.. both with our respective views.

I think a lot of you need to actually get out of your office and look at 
the corporate/business structure that has existed successfully and without 
dispute in Australia for the last gosh, 50+ years.

In the rush for "status" and political power, auDA and it's board and 
members have forgotten one thing - they have NO Government protection, they 
are a private company incorporated under Corporations law and make a 
perfect target for anyone willing to tackle it legally.

It WILL happen.