Re: [DNS] Solution to Name Registration

Re: [DNS] Solution to Name Registration

From: Adam Todd <auda§>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:29:30 +1000
With regards to Submissions, I made all my submissions to auDA's previous 
name - ADNA which shut down and later changed names to auDA.  It's good to 
see not much has changed since 1997.  (Maybe ask for the archives, surely 
they still exist - I know I have them.)

>This is all well and good but I can see issues that can arise in the fact
>that there are differing types of registarions within each state.
>Using your example 'JOE BLOW' is a registered business in NSW, also JOE
>BLOW is a registered charity in NSW and also a registered association.

They can't use the SAME NAME.  Please do find ONE example of a Trade Name, 
Charity and Association that all have the same name that are not made up of 
the same board or partners.

All three registries are managed by the NSW Department of Fair Trading.  As 
such, the data is contained in one register and only UNIQUE non-conflicting 
names can be created.

At any rate, an Association would register in ASN.AU and a charity in ORG.AU


So there is STILL no conflict (except assn's and charities across multiple 
states, but come on, surely we have enough brain power to even solve that one?)

>Who has the right to the name, why does a business have more propritity
>right to use the state name than an charity or even an association?

That point is mute as noted above.

> > Companies - that is those incorporated under Federal law - Corporations
> > Law  - who have trade rights throughout the Commonwealth of Australia
> > can  register in which I guess means more "" more
> > than  commercial, right?
>This would only give companies an unfair advantage in the space
>that directly relates to the .com space.

No it doesn't.  Does having the phone number 12345678 give you an unfair 
advantage over someone with 87654321?

Does having a fruit shop on the corner of Archer and Victoria Avenue have 
some advantage over one in Chatswood Chase?

Does having the phone number (02) 8825 6111 give me more advantage over 
someone with the phone number (03) 8825 6111?

Lets get serious.  What newspaper do you buy?  SHM, Telegraph?  Which one 
has the "unfair" advantage?

What computer do you use?  PC or a Mac?  What operating system?

We can go on for months like this, the reality is there is NO unfair 
advantage if people are HONEST about the process.

The problem is the last 5 years the entire system has been abused to the hilt.

MIT have ripped everyone off since day one.  Connect.COM.AU charged with 
managing NET.AU supposedly for NETWORK naming, started door to door street 
sales selling any name anyone would buy.

The problem is not in "" being an unfair name, it's in the fact that 
idiots go around and promote name space in an unfair manner.

>People sometimes mistakenly type the wrong thing, now for good or bad this 
>does happen and people have differing options on it.

So?  Does that mean if they mistakenly dial a wrong number Telstra should 
refund the call charges?

Gosh I use to have the number 482 1111 and got hundreds of daily calls for 
481 1111.  Trying to sell the calls to Pizza hut failed so I sold them to 
Domino's instead.  Is that an UNFAIR advantage?

>(some take advantage & some try to protect there interests against the 

Sadly this is true, and it's up to the supposed "self regulators" to solve 
this problem.  However, instead of going to a little trouble and getting 
some TV advertising space to EDUCATE the consumer, auDA will spend it money 
on airfares, Christmas parties and other useless expenses.

Or are you going to say auDA has NEVER paid for ANYONE'S airfare- EVER?

>This would only help companies to secure domains that have high value in
>type in value and take this away from the smaller companies who rely on
>these domains to bring in business with a minimal cost to the business.

So is ABC Pty Limited for valuable than ABC (Registered in NSW) ??

>Same question applies here. What gives a company propriety rights over the
>name more than a business of the same name?

And that's my solution.  NONE.  Because is a company 
incorporated under corporations law and is a trade name 
registered under the NSW Business Names Act.

SIMPLE.  No confusion and there is NO conflict.

You can't register a company name that matches the BUSINESS name of ANY 
registered business in ANY state.  You can't register a BUSINESS name of 
any company registered under Corp Law.  NO CONFLICT.

Or are you saying that:

Harry's Mix Masters Pty Limited
Homers Mitten Makers (NSW Trade Name)

can both register HMM.COM.AU and thus create a conflict not only to the 
consumer but the companies?

Please tell me WHICH one is more entitled to the HMM.COM.AU domain name?

What about HMM PTY Limited?  Not entitled?

The process is simple.  Your domain name should identically reflect your 
business/company name.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

The law is clear - you are NOT permitted to trade or identify your company 
using a "derived" name from your registered name, so why is it suddenly 
we're allowed to shorten or derive our domain name?

If I sent out my invoices with "TC Pty Limited" because I felt Todd 
Corporation Pty Limited was too long I'd be shot by ASIC and Fair Trading.

> > and are  members of say the TIO.  Yes, it forces TIO membership, but
> > the TIO isn't  constitutionally legal, nor does it abide by
>I'm going to show a little ignorance here and ask what is the TIO?

Did you bother to try  ??

>Regardless of that I feel that this sort of change would utterly and
>totally confuse the internet public as there is already an established
>.net and this is what , is associated with.

But it NEVER WAS associated with anything other than "network devices run 
by network operators"  it was Connect that stuffed that up for the AU name 
space about four years ago.

>Many technology companies, not just ISP's, use Take Hutchinson 
>Communicating for example use for there mobile network.

Because it COST them NOTHING.  Rather than paying money to MIT.  If the AU 
name space policy was managed they way it was created, rather than anyone 
discretion at any time in the last five years - because self regulation 
where money is concerned fails badly when you control both the cost and the 
product - it's called self regulating your monopoly - then these issues 
wouldn't exist.

>Should they loose property rights over a domain because they are not an ISP?

Or a network provider, they have a network.  They need to translate IP 
addresses to Network Names.  However, I did not address the issue of 2nd 
generation legacy names.  Only FUTURE names.

1st Generation Legacy Name have now been created within the 2nd generation 
legacy name policies.  We can't change that in a hurry, nor should we.

The State Government changed the Drivers Licence numbering some years 
back.  I still have my four digit, two letter licence number.  New numbers 
are a mixed back of ascii.  I'm not required to change my licence number 
because they increased the numbering scheme, but if my licence is cancelled 
and I have to reapply, I'll get a new number.

> From the many registrants and surfers that I know and have dealings with
>net means the internet and the domain name simply means that you are on
>the net.

Again, that's because people abused the name space they controlled for the 
purpose of making profit.  Maybe I'm just a stickler for well created 
structures.  I have a .NET for network services and .COM's for all business 
and consumer products.  Gosh I could cut my name space bills by ten by 
using one domain name space.

>Not that the site owner runs a network of any sort. I can only
>see that education of this would cause more problems than good, it moving
>away from the global market and separating our DNS from others around the
>globe (Much as the ICANN can seem at times).

Simple, if there is no name it's not going to come up is it!  And a 
you can't register a company name twice in this country (yet) you only need 
.COM.AU for your corporation.  Exactly WHERE is the conflict now?

Or are you saying we should confuse the consumer more and tell them:

"Hey, looking for a business on the Internet, try guessing! Start with, then, then just in case, and if you give up, try in case you didn't know it was a government organisation."

Thank goodness we have a single numbering system for phone services.

> > This would mean the only "competitive" name space - well, there is
> > none!  Because there is no "registrant" competition, and there is no
> > REGISTRY competition.
>Sorry but I can't agree, competition keeps us all developing towards
>better, cheaper and faster services.

Not when that competition involves selling the same thing 20 times over, 
when you only need one.  Anyone who tells a consumer they need a NET.AU 
name because someone will steal their identify is a fraud and abusing the 
entire process.

Until auDA places these rule firmly in place, consumers will continue to be 
ripped off.

But don't worry, I'll have some fun soon.  I'm about to roll out some TV 
ads and a documentary on the Domain Name system and the rorts and cons.

Oh and boy are there some exciting things to come from it.

>No competition would see the end to
>this and stagnate the market that everyone has a stake in. Also there
>would still be competition to who runs the DNS.

Competition is at the same of a product, not the sale of the same product 
twice.  It's already been raised that is not even locked down by 
auDA, although it's been registered for as long as I can remember as has

These hindsights are the problem.  The system was fine until people 
exploited it for greedy purposes.  But, the consumer is only stupid for so 
long.  They are starting to wake up today, more so than ever before.

What's more amusing is the "authorities" are rushing to get out of the line 
of fire.  Time is all that it takes.  Eventually the truth does surface.

> > In fact, what would be even better would be for automatic registration
> > of  BUSINESS and COMPANY names through the state registration body or
> > ASIC.  Solving ALL disputes, and problems.
>As above this will not stop disputes as people will always find a reason
>to have rights over another...

But they no longer can, because their dispute will have to be at the point 
of registration of their business name or with ASIC.  ANd there is little 
dispute when the rules are LEGISLATION, rather than under the table discretion.

> > All I can say is thank god I retied from IT&T and now work in a
> > different  industry.  Although I'm still a stakeholder in the DNS game,
> > mostly because  of endless legacy actions and activities, I'm glad I
> > don't have to enter  the political school yard games that constantly
> > abound by those who call  themselves professionals.
>In some way I can see how you feel that being out of this is a blessing,

Oh you have no idea.  Trying to back track and educate people all the time 
is frustrating.  I've been preaching the DNS story since 1993.

>in other ways the rise and fall of monopolistic companies and structures
>will see and pave the way for genuine completion with this market and also

Nope, it will devastate the world economy.  People already can't get Public 
Liability Insurance, this week professionals have revealed they can't get 
Professional Indemnity Insurance!

I need to raise an additional $20,000 in CASH to shoot my next film just to 
get insurance that isn't needed because all my cast and crew are covered by 
WORKERS COMPENSATION and no one should be entering into any closed set 

Where on earth does one find $20,000 in Australia for a high risk 
venture?  We don't, and that's why film in Australia is drying up 
fast.  Not to mention anything enterinament or FUN.

With Insurance companies trying to find those millions of invisible paper 
dollars and turn them into cash right now since the $3.8 Billion USD 
failing of Worldcom and the massive losses by ENRON, add in September 11 
and the Billions of insurance being paid out there, jobs are going to be 

Less Jobs means less consumer spending.  Less Consumer spending means less 
profits for companies.  Less profits for companies means lower payout to 
share holders.  Lower payout to shareholders means share prices 
fall.  Falling share prices means more job slashing so the profits are 
higher and the shares will rise, and so the cycle continues.

We're seeing it now.  Ansett was a victim of the magic book work by Air NZ 
to make it look better than it was, in the mean time Air NZ stripped Ansett 
of all it's assets so Air NZ had the capital value. All great if you can 
keep the companies floating and the cash flowing, not great if it falls 
over when a debt is called in.

The same is going to happen in this "new era of Aussie Domain Space."  Look 
at ICANN, gosh, now the board can't be elected by the public.  But it's 
suppose to be a public company for the interests of the world 
population.  Oh no, check my speech at the IFWP in Singapore in 1998, I'll 
eventually put the 18 hours of video taped speech's online.

>It will show the public the problems of the past and help them to
>make informed decisions about which direction to go to next.

Well, auDA is doing a pretty bad job of that, it's following in ICANN's 
footsteps, almost to the letter.  But I said that in 1997 when it was 
called AUDA and ICANN was better known as IAHC.

>. this being provided that we can remember the past and keep these rises 
>and falls in perspective.

But we don't remember the past.  We make it up to suit our most profitable 
interest to pull money from the consumer.

Most "corporate" and Political interests have an amazing way of re-writing 
history.  You'll see that when we release our sequel next year.   Man it's 
scary.  Catch me offlist of you want to see how Double Speak works in REAL 
life.  The difference between "perception" and Reality.  Even with a VIDEO 

> > I'm sure there is a film in all of those somewhere, or even a TV
> > Series.  Maybe it will appear next year!  Watch for your character to
> > appear!
>I'm actually surprised that something has not come out already.

It's too complex for the average script writer to put together and 
Hollywood in particular tends to avoid stories where people all site behind 
computers.  They don't make for interesting cinematography.

The very reason the Internet scenes in "Something About AJ" are short and 
sweet.  You can only show so many flashing router, hub and switch lights in 
the dark home of a techie before the audience gets bored.

Our Sequel has more than 23 phone calls in it.  It has 12 Internet 
Scenes.  It's boring in concept which is why I'm challenged to make it 

And if I succeed, then there will be a film out late next year called 
"Internet AU" it's already been registered for copyright.

>there are great (if that's what you call them) stories and situations out 
>there all over the 'net' that would make a great thriller/action/drama... 
>maybe after the ICANN reform we won't have to wait that long...

Got that one covered as well, but it's a lot of Online and Remote location 
filming that makes it costly and difficult.  Plus the reality is, most of 
ICANN is behind closed doors so we don't know what really goes on, only 
"what is in the best interests of the public" which basically means nothing.

Bit like "the best interests of the child."  But who decides what's best 
and why?

Anyway, I'm back to pre-production, just wanted to stick my beck in after 5 
years and let people know I've been watching, gone by not forgotten as I've 
noticed references to me a few times in the last 12 months.
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC