> Quoting Chris Maltby on Wednesday March 30, 2005:
> | 
> | As I recall, when kre was in charge of .org.au registrations the
> | rules were even tougher. He insisted on there being an organisation
> | which fitted in no other 2LD as the main requirement.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:04:21PM +0800, Kim Davies wrote:
> That was the stated policy for some time, but I think the best summary
> of the rules as they were applied in the 90's would be "inconsistent".

They were certainly frustrating, but inconsistent I would strongly
dispute (as I'm sure would kre).

> Some times they were applied loosely, at other times not so. Without
> knowing the specifics I don't think you can make a good assumption on
> the basis for any domain registration being granted.

The requirement for a special kind of non-commercial _organisation_ to
exist to "own" the registration was not breached that I am aware of.
Can you supply an example?

The most frustrating aspects were the one-name-per-org rule, the
practical impossibility of transfers or name changes and the need
for all the DNS servers to be up and consistent - and of course
the occasional unexplained delays.

Chris