[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

[DNS] Australia's luckiest man?

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:08:00 +1000
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Jon Lawrence
|> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:36 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Australia's luckiest man?
|> 
|> >Perhaps some better guidelines for applying the clause 
|> would make this
|> more
|> >objective and work as intended.
|> 
|> But it is by definition a subjective policy.  It is 
|> therefore impossible to have uniform application of that 
|> policy.  You can write all the guidelines you like to try to 
|> stop warehousing however as the reality has proven over and 
|> over again it simply doesn't work.  Even if you move back to 
|> the "directly derived" rule that used to apply it still 
|> doesn't work.  All the way back to 1999 and probably before 
|> there were companies registering hundreds of domain names 
|> under this highly restrictive version of this policy using 
|> separate RBNs which just happened to include all the letters 
|> of the domain name they wanted in the right order.  The only 
|> reason they didn't register all the generic names back then 
|> was that they were reserved.  That particular restriction 
|> has of course now been removed.

There will always be a few people who will try to get around any rules.  Fact
of life, you can only make rules to stop the majority and try to redress any
issues as they come up.

 
|> >Disagree, I suggest strengthening the clause and making it 
|> so it can be 
|> >enforced.
|> 
|> How?

One way is the current policy of not allowing resale of domain names, takes
away the opportunity for them to make a profit trading in names or at the very
least makes it more difficult and so assists in enforcing the policy.  All the
policies tend to work together.

|> >You may call it warehousing, others have called it good commercial 
|> >sense, a lot of us see it as cybersquatting.  If there isn't an 
|> >intention to use
|> the
|> >name but only to sell it off to the highest bidder it is 
|> cybersquatting
|> pure
|> >and simple.
|> 
|> No.  Cybersquatting and warehousing are separate issues.  
|> There are clearly defined and to date reasonably effective 
|> mechanisms in place for dealing with cybersquatting that do 
|> not require upfront vetting by the registrar.
|> 
|> 
|> Dictionary.com defines cybersquatting as "The practice of 
|> registering famous brand names as Internet domain names, 
|> e.g. harrods.com, ibm.firm or sears.shop, in the hope of 
|> later selling them to the appropriate owner at a profit."
|>  This definition dates from 1998 (as is clear from the TLD 
|> references).
|> 
|> If it's a generic word then there is no IP rights to the 
|> name therefore it's not cybersquatting.

Take IP out of the definition and the intent is the same.  You may call it a
bird but if it quacks it is still a duck.


|> >The impact of opening up the market as you and others are 
|> advocating 
|> >would have an even more adverse impact.
|> 
|> Why? On whom?  Let's not forget that 99.9% of domain name 
|> registrants are totally legitimate Australian businesses 
|> trying to market themselves in the most cost-effective 
|> manner.  It is (IMHO) not in the public interest to have 
|> artificial restrictions on registrations simply to try to 
|> police the 0.1% of operators who wish to conduct businesses 
|> based on the resale of domain names which they perceive to 
|> have some intrinsic value, when there is nothing inherently 
|> illegal about that activity.  I don't particularly like 
|> domain warehousing as a business model but I just don't see 
|> any legitimate reason for proscribing it.  Also, as I think 
|> has been proven over and over again, generic domain names 
|> really aren't a particularly effective way to build a brand 
|> and market a business, so I don't think this issue is as 
|> significant as many people would suggest it is.

As the other policies would be weakened and there would not be any barriers to
a full scale assault of cybersquatting or "warehousing".


|> >Worried you wont get a chance at any?
|> 
|> Please.  I have registered two .au domain names ever and 
|> currently have one active and it's not even a .com.au.  As 
|> you can see, I use a .com for my email address.  I would use 
|> the .com.au version if it were cost-effective for me to do 
|> so.  I don't accept that there are legitimate reasons why a 
|> .com.au domain name should cost any more than a .com and I 
|> believe the allocation policy is part of the reason why they 
|> do.  That's my agenda.

It was a throw away line intended to be humour, it was not a serious question.
I'm not aware of your domain holdings or interests in the area.  I don't deal
in .au names either and whilst I didn't like the previous high prices and some
of the restrictions I believe it is closer to being reasonable at the moment.
I don't think .au prices should equal .com ones, that market is a totally
different one.  Personally I'd like to see IPs and domain names being free but
that isn't possible anymore.

|> >I hold the opposite view, if it isn't working as intended, 
|> strengthen 
|> >it and make it work.
|> 
|> Again, how?

Making sure the opportunities for scammers and others to make a profit are not
there and trying to keep them out.  Sure it takes work and it makes it harder
on everyone but I don't want to see the .au namespace ending up like the
gTLDs.  It is reasonably clean at the moment.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 
Received on Thu Oct 13 2005 - 22:08:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 24 2014 - 20:00:15 UTC