>_From: Boz Cappie
> 
> On 23/02/98, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> 
> >
> >(2) dan.com.au
> >    divdat.com.au
> >    diversified.com.au
> >
> >   All three are registered to the same person. "dan" is the guy's name!
> >   And his ACN is listed as "000000000". Hmmmmf!  Also, "diversified" is
> >   a dictionary word.
> 
> It seems as though the anomolies went through because the registrant
> incorrectly supplied information - a check of the entries indicates this.
> However, I think it should have picked up, especially with the absence of
> either a RBN or ACN on one of the entries and the provision of the same RBN
> for two different business names. Now THAT's illegal! Unless, of course,
> the registrant changed his business name and neglected to inform the dns gods.
> 
> I still think that one of the more interesting fights that has gone on over
> naming is that of consult.com, denied registration of the domain name
> 'consult.com.au' through some very ludicrous reasoning. Ramin might be able
> to let us know how it's going, but essentially, MelbourneIT apparently say
> that 'consult' is the name of an industry and so can't be used. To me, this
> is the biggest piece of b.s. that I've ever heard.
> -- reality is what you can get away with --

personnel.com.au was granted.  its just the most amazing waste of
time and money I have seen that could have only been invented for a
dns system. I think ours is a laughing stock around the world.

we are now officially discouraging users from selecting .com.au domains
until competition occurs, then the market will decide what set of rules
they want for a registry.

since dns is really a public asset, I would like to know what MIT
have done with the money. 

Vic