> -----Original Message----- > From: ian§bluedoor [mailto:auda206§bluedoor.com.au] > Sent: Friday, 25 March 2005 8:22 > To: dns§dotau.org > Subject: Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules > > > > On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 01:17 AM, Larry Bloch wrote: > > > What I think Vic is articulating (and if so I agree) is > that we have > > to ensure policy serves the customer, not what armchair enthusiasts > > think customers want. From the front line, what we see is that: > > What are armchair enthusiasts? Errr....everybody on this list for starters? > > > > - registrants don't understand the restrictions placed on > them by the > > policy > > I think the australian public is quite aware of the > restrictions placed > on them. In fact many are unaware of how loose the policy is. I > personally can't see the difficulty of the "close and substantial" > clause. Just because a user wants a name it does not mean they should > automatically be entitled to it. I suppose I meant 'understand' in the context of a sanity or reasonableness test. Yes they understand what is required of them, but largely they fail to understand why. It's subjective - just my call, not fact. > > for example I want parishilton.com.au. The policy states I need a > reason as far as I am aware this is how it goes > 1. I am paris hilton - accepted > 2. I sell paris hilton videos - accepted > 3. I want to run a site about paris hilton - denied/accepted > (this one > I am not sure about perhaps someone can explain) > 4. I want to sit on the domain and sell it later - denied > > What is so difficult about that. If you "want" a name you must have a > reason so state it. Simple! > > Without the clause you are inviting speculators/squatters to step in. > Unfortunately as everyone states the horse has bolted, > however this is > partially due to registrars "bending" the registration rules in an > attempt to grab their market share as well as auda's unwillingness to > enforce it's own policies. Little self-governing going on there. There are other mechanisms to deal with intellectual property right infringements. Its not the role of policy or a regulator to make the call - particularly as there is an entire spectrum of what is acceptable and what is not. I agree its not black and white - it's a controversial issue and a balance is needed - I think the balance is currently too restrictive and would like to see the scales tipped a little towards openess (which to be fair is exactly what is happening over time - just a little to slowly for my preference). > > > - they want names to be registered in real time > > No I believe the registrars prefer real time registrations as this > requires as little man power as possible. The more automated the > cheaper it gets. Automation can't happen with multiple variables like > "reasons" involved. The policy was sound, after all why have > a panel to > evaluate it in the first place, however as stated the > registrars pushed > for real time registrations which was the beginning of the > "loop holes". If I buy something online, I want to know if I have it within seconds of pushing "submit" > > > - they see the policy as useless red tape for no practical benefit > > Aren't all policies :) > > > - they want to be able to sell their names > > Apparently you can already? It seems that "where there's a will > there's a way". Also registrars don't seem to make the process too > complicated. > https://www.enetica.com.au/register.cgi?action=reg_transfer > > Ian The joys of a free society? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without > permission of the > author, further information at the above URL. > >Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC