Glen Turner wrote:
> 
> Gary Oliver wrote:
> > Thanks for poitning out I omitted the question. My question is the same
> > as that others have posed, viz what is wrong with allowing dictionary
> > words in .com.au subject to showing grounds for it.
> >
> > The problem that I see with the acn approach I touched on in an earlier
> > msg, viz many companies are in a structure (eg operations, financing,
> > holding etc) and so have several acns within their "group".
> 
> I would envisage such a system returning all the ACNs
> for the group.  If the group has multiple e-mail systems,
> then the ACN would map to the most suitable.  If it
> has one, then they would all point to the same server.
> Ditto for WWW, etc.
> 
> I expect I'll have a proof of concept system up in
> a few more weeks.
> 
> Glen.
> 
> --
> glen.turner§itd.adelaide.edu.au     Network Support Specialist
> Tel: (08) 8303 3936            Information Technology Division
> Fax: (08) 8303 4400             University of Adelaide SA 5005
> ---. -.- ..... --. -.. --  http://www.adelaide.edu.au/~gturner
> There are two major products that came out of Berkeley:
> LSD and UNIX.  This is no coincidence.

Hi Glen

Sorry my point wasn't clearer. When you take the acn approach you are
imposing a legal distinction from a legal realm on the business affairs
of the company and therefore choosing just one would not be an option;
they would have to be careful to use the one representative of the
entity for which they were acting at the time. Of course if you meant to
soak up fees for multiple registrations this way ... <g>

Warm regards
Gary