auDA invited people to respond to the current Name policy review, from what I can see you chose not to respond. * To view this in light of current domain holders and the current situation fails to take into account the future use of the internet, domain names and future domain registrants. Personally I believe a more apt clich? than "if it aint broke, don't fix it" is "if you fail to plan, you plan to fail". There are many issues with the current DNS system and domain name policy and if nothing is done about it then this will only get worse. Must we really wait until it breaks to address them? Should we not address them as we seem them to avoid the issues in the first place? Sean K. Finn wrote: > > I think that before adding any new extensions or changing the > namespace in such a major way, a VOTE should be conducted, from the > current registrant contact of all .au domain name holders. > > > > Only then can a true representation of what CURRENT .au holders want. > > > > AuDA sends out emails whenever a domain name is registered, it should > be within its scope to at least conduct a survey annually or biannually. > > > > Generally, the old saying 'Dont fix it if it aint broken' comes to mind. > > > > .au is functioning, there's no MAJOR problems at the moment, so why > change it if there are no problems to be solved or advantages (beside > a select few cashing in, aka corruption slash CONFLICT OF INTERESTS). > > > > If there ARE advantages to be had, sure, but if theres no problems to > be solved or advantages to be gained, why is this discussion even on > the table? > > > > Have we all been that bored in the last few years that we are making > up ways to change .au just so we have something to do in our mundane > boring jobs? > > > > -Sean > > > > *From:* dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au§dotau.org] *On Behalf > Of *Ron Stark > *Sent:* Sunday, 1 July 2007 12:26 PM > *To:* '.au DNS Discussion List' > *Subject:* Re: [DNS] Australia registers more .au than .com domains > > > > So use "IT" as an example. Or "trades", "business" or any of a > multitude of others that aren't specifically covered by legislation. > My point is that under the current rules, a close or substantial > connection is sufficient qualification. I don't need a trademark, and > I don't need a registered business - an ABN will suffice. Is it > perhaps suggested that each different 2LD has a unique set of rules > and policies? Or is it proposed to modify the existing rules? > > > > I can see it all now. The clarity of www.it.trades.au > <http://www.it.trades.au> and www.trades.it.au > <http://www.trades.it.au>, to go along with www.ittrades.com.au > <http://www.ittrades.com.au> and www.tradesit.com.au > <http://www.tradesit.com.au>. > > > > The notion that the term "bank" is covered by legislation is farcical, > given that bank.com.au is registered to Internet Product Sales and > Services Pty Ltd, banks.com.au is owned by Aussie Destinations (1) Pty > Ltd, both of which resolve to the same website. > > > > The argument was put forward that coke, for example, would prefer to > use coke.com. Using the argument that the registrant must be > operating within the industry, then a bank who wants to increase their > visibility in search engines could rightfully register coke.bank.au, a > plumber coke.plumbers.au, whilst Coca Cola would be denied that right. > > > > Wow! There's a great brand enhancement strategy. > > > > I fail to see how simply contriving additional 2LDs resolves minor > problems that now exist. Instead, I can see it introducing more > problems of greater magnitude and complexity. > > > > Ron Stark > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org] *On Behalf > Of *info§enigmaticminds.com.au > *Sent:* Saturday, 30 June 2007 21:23 > *To:* .au DNS Discussion List > *Subject:* Re: [DNS] Australia registers more .au than .com domains > > A self managed super fund is not a bank, I would have thought that > was pretty obvious. > > In a similar manner a podcast does not make you a radio station > (.radio.au), uploading youtube viedos does not make you a tv > station (.tv.au), etc. > > If you're not legitimately in the industry, you wouldn't be > eligible to register the domain name, just like you can't register > .gov.au or .edu.au > > > Ron Stark wrote: > > OK. So IBM, BP, Price Waterhouse Coopers and little old me run a > credit union for my staff. Woo Hoo - I can register > snapsite.bank, then. > > > > Josh (sorry Josh :-)) possibly runs his own self-managed super > fund. So he gets josh.bank.au. Real clear and easy to administer > ........... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org > <mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org> > [mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org] *On > Behalf Of *info§enigmaticminds.com.au > <mailto:info§enigmaticminds.com.au> > *Sent:* Saturday, 30 June 2007 17:36 > *To:* .au DNS Discussion List > *Subject:* Re: [DNS] Australia registers more .au than .com > domains > > I totally agree with Edwin. > > Further to this, I have always said that with industry > specific domains, you must be within that industry. Therefore > only a bank could register a domain using the .bank.au extension. > > This already applies for domain extensions such as .gov.au and > .edu.au, so this concept is nothing new. In effect, the > .gov.au and .edu.au domains are examples of industry specific > domains. Do you see any untoward activities in these > namespaces? Any phising? Any cyber-squatting or domain > speculation? > > As for conflicts, there's would be far fewer as it is limited > to each industry. For example only plumbers of the name Joe > would be interested in joes.plumbing.au whereas every Joe from > every industry would be interested in joe.com.au. > > > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:52:13PM +1000, Ron Stark wrote: > > > > I can think of a mere handful of bank.au domains - anz, cba, commonwealth, > > qld, westpac, boq, queensland, suncorp, bendigo, city, citi and so on. Then > > > > > > Plus hundreds of credit unions? > > > > > > come the grey areas over which disputes would inevitably arise from each of > > the competing "legitimate" registrants: lending.bank.au, finance.bank.au, > > cheap.bank.au, friendly.bank.au, local.bank.au, regional.bank.au, > > credit.bank.au, community.bank.au, farmers.bank.au, your.bank.au, > > online.bank.au, internet.bank.au and a whole lot of others. > > > > > > The policy of the bank.com.au, just like the policy of the .museum > > and .areo, will probably prevent you (and everybody else) from > > regestrering them. > > > > > > But wait ... there's more! I do newsletters for a certain bank as part of > > my business. I then qualify to register newsletter.bank.au, because there's > > already a close or substantial connection. I also resell domain names > > therefore I qualify for domains.bank.au. Oh - websites, too, which gives me > > > > > > These too. > > > > Edwin > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20070701/3282ef2d/attachment-0001.htmReceived on Sun Jul 01 2007 - 06:51:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:09 UTC