Re: Re DNS: Yellow Pages rule, OK!

Re: Re DNS: Yellow Pages rule, OK!

From: Leni Mayo <leni§toplevel.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:01:48 +1100
Peter Gerrand wrote:

> At 19:41 7/11/97 +1100, Andrew Dixon wrote:
> >Dear sir'
> >
> >I work within the computer industry, and advise clients about domain
> names.
> >I understand the domain name policies and work within the rules.
> >Lately I am finding that Melbourne IT are either favoring certain
> companies
> >or have thrown their rules out the window.
> >
> >Some domains recently aquired :- corporate.com.au
> >                                                  business.com.au
> >                                                  barristers.com.au
> >                                                  lawyer.com.au
> >
> >I feel there is a conflict of interest at Melbourne IT as domain
> names are
> >simply a big money spinner for them.
> >Some companies can't get a name and others can leaves me wondering
> why !
> >Is money or influence involved here ?
> >
> >Thank you.
> >Andrew Dixon.
> >
>
> Andrew
>
> Thank you for drawing my attention (and that of the dns mailing list!)
> to
> those anomalies, which I take very seriously. I have investigated the
> examples you gave, this morning, and am satisfied that no unethical
> "money
> or influence" or "racket" (to quote Ramin) has taken place in the
> Bureau's
> decisions. The old adage of Australian politics - "given the choice of
> a
> conspiracy or a stuff-up as the explanation, go for a stuff-up every
> time"
> - is equally applicable here.
>
> Let me discuss the examples you cited, one by one.
>
> 1. 'business.com.au' was registered in 1996 under a previous DNA
> regime,
> as Paul Montgomery has noted in a subsequent posting. On taking over
> the
> com.au DNA responsibility, we agreed to renew all previously allocated
>
> com.au domain names, provided they are registered by a legitimate
> Australian business entity.
>
> 2.and 3. Concerning 'lawyers' and 'barristers', the legal advice we
> received at the time was that names of professions are not goods or
> services, or industry sectors, or organisation types, and therefore
> are
> acceptable under the policies in place since 17 January 1997 (when the
>
> earlier policy excluding all common words was changed, with
> endorsement
> from the intiaa dns forum).
>
> Since October we have been trialling the use of the Index of the
> current
> (hard copy) Yellow Pages as a more objective test of whether a
> proposed
> name is a generic good or service (and therefore should be rejected).
> Once
> again we 'grandfather' (i.e. retain) all earlier decisions in our zone
>
> files. Using the Yellow Pages Index will not please everyone, but it
> is a
> readily available reference, and it will enable ISPs and other
> customers to
> check out a name before applying for it.
>
> 4. "Corporate.com.au" was a mistake made by an inexperienced registrar
> in
> July, and this was drawn to our Bureau's attention two weeks ago. For
> this
> mistake, we apologise to other applicants; the name, being an
> organisation
> type, should have been rejected under our rules. The company that has
> been
> allocated the name has implemented a website and is conducting their
> business using that name, and I do not intend to penalise their
> business by
> taking their domain name away from them, when they received it in good
>
> faith. It was our mistake, not theirs.
>
> I welcome any fair criticisms of the com.au Bureau service, so that we
> can
> keep improving it. In particular we are willing to help, and have
> helped,
> applicants denied names prior to 17.1.97 under the "common word" rule
> move
> to their preferred name, where the post-January '97 rules permit it.
> Hopefully the errors the Bureau has made in implementing the com.au
> naming
> policies are less than 0.02% of the 21,000 we have registered for
> Australian businesses since we commenced this service on 1 November
> 1996.
>
> Peter Gerrand
> CEO, Melbourne IT
> (Domain Name Administrator for com.au)

Peter -

I note with regret that there is no place independent of M-IT to whom
ramin can raise the issue of operational compliance with policy.  This
may unnecessarily place the technical contacts in a compromising
position.

A follow-up question: under M-IT's letter of agreement, who is finally
and ultimately responsible for defining .com.au policy?

Leni.
Received on Mon Nov 10 1997 - 19:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Nov 27 2014 - 00:00:07 UTC