If Westpac haven't noticed that registration in five months then they're either incompetent or they're paying someone that's incompetent. 

I don't think that's a valid reason go keep/change/discuss the rules relating to .com.au. 

TM-law-wise, if neither Westpac nor St George protect their Trademarks, they will eventually lose the protection (precisely why Google will not let you make their brand into a verb). 

Otherwise, that's the best argument I've heard, so far, for a .bank.au space. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Andrewartha" <trs80&#167;ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> 
To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org> 
Sent: Saturday, 25 October, 2008 8:48:40 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
Subject: Re: [DNS] [SPAM] A spot of phishing .. 

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Smith wrote: 

> What I find fascinating is that someone could register a domain called 
> 'stgeorgewestpac.com.au' without anybody raising an eyebrow, since May 
> this year. 
> 
> I'm sure you all know how to look up who registered it, and we can all 
> ponder the 'close and substantial'ness of 'A.C.N. 123 970 418 PTY LTD' 
> 
> Is our slather open enough yet? 

Well, I suppose if your business if phishing, then stgeorgewestpac.com.au 
has a close and substantial connection to it ;-) 

-- 
# TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ 
# UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | 
[ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | 
[ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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/20081026/130948b5/attachment.htm>