See: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/

section 4 in particular.



>-- Original Message --
>From: "bw" <bw&#167;efe.com.au>
>To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:26:55 +1000
>Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
>Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>
>
>Is there any policy that covers registrar's having privileged information
>and registering domains?
>
>
>Bernard Weekes
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dns-bounces+bw=efe.com.au&#167;dotau.org
>[mailto:dns-bounces+bw=efe.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of Dassa
>Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2005 9:39 PM
>To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
>Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
>
>Comments inline as appropriate. 
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
>|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
>|> Bennett Oprysa
>|> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:59 PM
>|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
>|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
>|> 
>|> The issue of cybersquatting has now come up so many times, I 
>|> think we need to properly address it and dispose of it.
>|> 
>|> There seem to be a number of variations of what people think 
>|> cybersquatting is. The correct definition is the act of 
>|> registering a domain that matches the name, trademark or 
>|> product of a company or person, with the intent of 
>|> benefiting from the goodwill or value associated with the 
>|> name, or intending to force the targeted entity to pay an 
>|> inflated price to get that domain name back.
>
>I prefer the following definition:
>Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet address--usually
>a
>company name--with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner.
>
>The Internet address may be a company name, it may be a trademark or it
may
>be
>a more generic word, the rightful owner is someone who intends to develop
>the
>name in conjunction with a close and substantial connection to themselves,
>their interests or business.
>
>As such, domain speculation falls under the definition I use for
>cybersquatting.
>
>I would prefer not to see anyone allowed to register a domain name they
>don't
>intend to use at some point.
>
>|> The act of registering numerous domains names that match 
>|> generic products, services, phrases, common words etc with 
>|> the intention of re-selling the domain at an inflated price 
>|> is more appropriately called domain speculation, and is in 
>|> no way similar to cybersquatting, the two should not be 
>|> grouped for any reason.
>
>Why not?  I consider them to be so similar as to find it very difficult
to
>separate.  They have similar consequences.
>
>|> Cybersquatting has real and direct victims, and is almost  
>|> universally considered unethical, immoral and usually also 
>|> illegal. Domain speculation has no direct victims, the only 
>|> possible negative impact is that it increases the price of 
>|> the targetted domains. This does however also have the 
>|> positive of driving the price of normal registrations down, 
>|> as registrars and the registry get higher overall volumes of 
>|> registrations.
>
>Domain speculation has the same kind of victims as does cybersquatting,
even
>more actually, cybersquatting is targetted whilst speculation throws a
net
>over even more victims.  There will be registration growth without the
>speculators so that is a red herring.  Again, more isn't always better.

>The
>price of names gradually comes down as the namespace grows without
>speculation.
>
>|> We already have a large number of policies in place to stop 
>|> cybersquatting, making the transfer process easier will have 
>|> no impact whatsoever in this regard. There is therefore no 
>|> point anyone discussing the issue of cybersquatting, it is 
>|> completely irrelevant to current proposals.
>
>The discussion is about changing those policies which are the controls
over
>undesirable practices, of course they should be discussed.
>
>|> If you have an issue with domain speculators, that specific 
>|> issue can be discussed as some already have. I am for 
>|> example prepared to have some controls in place to reduce or 
>|> minimise rampant speculation, such as the 6 month transfer 
>|> lock Tony suggested. Existing eligibility rules, as well as 
>|> the requirement to have an ABN etc already mean we will 
>|> never see the level of speculation you get in .com. I am 
>|> however not interested in anyone who wants to totally 
>|> prevent domain speculation. It is a perfectly legal 
>|> activity, very few people will be negativelly impacted and 
>|> there are a number of benefits, not just for registrars.
>
>I see very little benefit in allowing speculation.  By definition it is
a
>risky business and from what we have seen in other namespaces, the negative
>impact of allowing it goes far beyond any positive aspects for many years.
>
>Allowing easier transfers doesn't mean AuDA has to allow full speculation
>or
>open the market right up.
>
>|> Apart from a couple of people who, for some incomprehensible 
>|> reason seem intent on doing everything they can to prevent 
>|> any reasonable discussion on the matter, the last few days 
>|> have already seen a number of more positive suggestions and 
>|> some movement towards a likely middle ground, I hope it continues.
>
>I hope it continues also.  I don't have a problem with discussing such
>issues.
>The more they are discussed the better understanding everyone has of them.
>Please remember, middle ground is just that, compromise comes from all
>parties.  Discussing concerns is the way to reach a mutually acceptable
>alternative to extremes.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/