On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:34:44 +0200, Kim Davies wrote:
> #1 That AMRTA could possibly lose margaretriver.com through any action
>    of auDA
> #2 That it is a federal government plan
> #3 That there was a restriction on geographic names like
>    margaretriver.com before
> #4 That the loss would have "critical consenquences" (it relies on the
>    premise of #1 to be true)
> #5 The claim that "another company [could get] the rights to the domain
>    address." The only way AMRTA could lose margaretriver.com is through
>    their negligence (e.g. not paying the bill for it), or by losing a
>    dispute resolution process whereby someone else proves they have
>    registered margaretriver.com in bad faith (i.e. extremely unlikely)

If you read it 3 times, you start to realise that what they are saying 
(really badly) is that they are worrying about someone else getting the 
new margaretriver.com.au name and being in competition with them.
Because, don't you know, competition is a bad thing? ;)
What we are seeing here is real ignorance of exactly what terminology 
should be used to describe their situation, poor things.

Actually, if they are a non profit (?) then they would presumably be 
perfect candidates for the new freebie geographic names that this round 
is supposed to fund (you know, releasing domain names requires VC 
funding if you don't think of something clever like flogging a 
different batch at a vastly overblown price)

Lea
~ who probably shouldn't post at this time of night... 
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet.  http://elysiansystems.com/
39 Dawson Parade, Keperra QLD 4054 (07) 3355-5614
WebTalk: Putting Businesses on the Internet - a newsletter at 
http://elysiansystems.com/newsletter/