"Melbourne IT is about to lift an unenforceable ban..." (as well as)
"Melbourne IT is not responsible for setting policy. Melbourne IT
administers the policy set by auDA".

We could hope that in acknowledgement of the untenable position Melbourne IT
seems to have been placed in - that of having to administer unenforceable
policy - that Melbourne IT could be empowered to simply advise auDA when and
why a policy is unworkable, and that the policy will no longer be followed.
After all, they are the ones "at the coal face" who have to deal with all
the consumer complaints.

To the best of my knowledge there are (at least) four towns in Australia
with the name "Lawson". This name is an Australian icon named after the poet
and traveller Henry Lawson... Which town is eligible to register the
domain?... Alternatively, the relatives of Henry Lawson are still alive...
shouldn't they be able to register the domain? - It is, after all, their
name... even though it is one of the most widely known place names in
Australia. Why then... does a whois search identify the domain name
lawson.com.au as registered to Lawson Communications of Ryde in Sydney? -

Nobody could have missed the fact that this is a place name, and surely
every Australian would be aware that this is a very well known family
name... yet it was given to an unrelated business. Certainly this highlights
the impossible nature of attempting to enforce the policy - for who is
elligible?... the town of Lawson in the NSW Blue Mountains?... the town of
Lawson near Mudgee?... or Lawson in WA?... the family of Henry Lawson?... or
perhaps even the legitimate case of Lawson Communications?

Double standards abound in this policy, and it certainly is time it was
tidied up... congratulations to Melbourne IT for attempting to rectify this
mess.

Cheers, Don