>Precisely - if this sort of abuse continues then a large proportion of

>generics will be monetised, and anyone who actually wants to establish
a 
>business using a generic domain name will be out of luck, unless they wish

>to purchase it from the current monetiser (which really shows that they

>are cybersquatting - see 4.5 below).

By definition, it is not possible to "cybersquat" on a generic name.  Cybersquatting
means infrining someone's trademark.  Generic terms cannot be trademarked
therefore you cannot cybersquat on a generic name.

auDA released the generic names by auction.  The reason they did that is
because they recognised that generic domain names have a perceived value
that is significantly higher than non-generic domain names.  

If I was starting a business now and wished to use a generic domain name
then I would have no problem in paying a "fair market value" for that domain
name.  If you think about it, it's actually far more likely that a "domainer"
would be willing to sell on a generic name at a reasonable price to a start-up
business that wanted it than would an established business that would then
need to rebrand.

There are however very few examples of successful businesses being built
on the back of generic domain names.  The majority of the most successful
online businesses have remarkably ungeneric domain names (yahoo, google,
ebay, amazon, skype, hotmail etc etc etc).  Most established business simply
want to trade under their existing brand.  I therefore really question just
how substantial the actual underlying demand for generic names is within
the wider business community.

If the people that have paid good money to register generic domain names
wish to realise a return on investment through pay-per-click advertising
based on type-in traffic then I say good luck to them.  I don't particularly
like that business model nor would I ever click through on one of these
sites but then I'm not your 'average internet user'.  As I've said before,
the reason these sites exist is because people do click on these links.
 I suspect that in a few years from now, the wider population will become
pretty clued up to the real value of these sites and will avoid them as
I suspect most people on this list already do.  If that happens, these sites
will begin to disappear.

Jon

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:29:24 +0800 (WST)
>From: James Andrewartha <trs80&#167;ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>
>To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>Subject: Re: [DNS] Monetised
>Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>
>
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, David Jones wrote:
>
>[generics]
>
>> You may as well aboilish the Eligibility policy because now it adversely
>
>> affects those who wish to register a domain but not to monetise it. The
>
>> only criteria that should exist is that you are an Australian business
>
>> or citizen.
>
>Precisely - if this sort of abuse continues then a large proportion of

>generics will be monetised, and anyone who actually wants to establish
a
>
>business using a generic domain name will be out of luck, unless they wish
>
>to purchase it from the current monetiser (which really shows that they

>are cybersquatting - see 4.5 below).
>
>So either auDA cracks down on this sort of abuse, or it should just open
>
>up the open 2LDs to anyone. As a side note, I see dwarfs.com.au is now
a
>
>blank page, so having lost the income from their illegitimate 
>monetisation, and unless the registrant comes up with something actually
>
>related to dwarfs, they'll let it expire in two years when it can be 
>reused by anyone with a legitimate use for it.
>
>James Andrewartha
>
>http://auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-03/
>
>4.2 In addition to their obligations under auDA Published Policies and
the
>
>Registrant Agreement (domain name licence), domainers must comply with
the
>
>following conditions of use:
>
>a) the content on a monetised website must be related specifically and

>predominantly to the domain name; and
>
>b) the domain name must not be an entity name, personal name or brand name
>
>in existence at the time the domain name was registered.
>
>4.3 The condition in paragraph 4.2a) is intended to ensure that the close
>
>and substantial connection between the domainer and the domain name is

>visible and meaningful to users. If the content of a monetised website

>does not relate to the domain name in any discernible way, then the 
>domainer is not providing the service described in paragraph 4.1 and the
>
>close and substantial connection rule is not satisfied.
>
>4.4 A "reasonableness test" is used to determine whether the content 
>on a monetised website satisfies paragraph 4.2a), ie. would a reasonable
>
>person regard the content as related specifically and predominantly to
the
>
>domain name? For example, a monetised website at www.shoes.com.au would

>need to contain information and advertising links about shoes and/or shoe
>
>manufacturers and suppliers. If the website contained information and 
>advertising links about clothing in general including shoes, then it would
>
>not be acceptable under the close and substantial connection rule.
>
>4.5 The condition in paragraph 4.2b) is intended to ensure that domain

>monetisation is not used as a cover for cybersquatting or other misleading
>
>or fraudulent activity.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/