Peter Gerrand wrote:
> 
> Luke
> For the 17 January meeting of the DNS Forum in Sydney, I request that an
> agenda item be set on Changes to COM.AU Policies.
> 
> I will be seeking Forum endorsement of the following proposals:
> 
> A. That the Domain Name Rules within the General (Naming) Policy for
> COM.AU [ref. http://www.MelbourneIT.com.au/com_au/com.au_policy.html] be
> amended as follows:
> 
> A1: that Rule 5, that excludes any word 'that is a common English
> dictionary word, such as "infinity"', be amended to except (i.e. to
> allow to be registered) common words that are distinctive words within
> the registered company names or registered business names or trademarks
> belonging to the applicant organisation. In each case the company name
> or business name or trademark must be registered in Australia.
> 
> The argument for this change is that (i) too may exceptions to the
> current rule were made under a previous DNA regime for it to be fair to
> continue to apply it to new applicants, and (ii) if a company has
> already exercised initiative and precedence in protecting a common word
> as part of its company/business name or trademark, then it should be
> entitled to use that word as its third level domain name.
> 
> Anticipating some of your thoughts, I suggest that a transparent process
> will need to be approved at this meeting for (1) communicating the
> change of rule to the industry, especially to past applicants whose
> applications were rejected under the current rule; (2) indicating a
> future date - e.g. two months beyond 17 January - at which new
> applications for common words will be considered, at which time all
> contending bids for the same word can be identified; and (3) a fair
> process for then selecting one out of several competing bids for the
> same common word.
> 
> A2: that Rule 6, that excludes any 'generic English dictionary word
> indicating a class or type, such as "photography"', be deleted - on the
> grounds that (i) making a decision on what is "generic" is intrinsically
> subjective and therefore vulnerable to arbitrary decision making, and
> (ii) Rule 6 it is covered by Rule 5 anyway.
> 
> A3: that Rule 7, that excludes any word 'that is not an unqualified
> Australian place name such as "Melbourne"', be made more precise, by
> only excluding those Australian place names appearing in the list of
> Australian Post Codes listed in the back of the White Pages directories.
> (That is the way that the COM.AU DNA is currently interpreting this rule
> anyway.)
> 
> B. That to encourage fair competition between the DN Administrators for
> COM.AU, NET.AU and BIZ.AU, that the General (Naming) Policies under
> which they operate be identical, so that they can then cover the same
> market, namely that of commercial users of the Internet in Australia.
> (Pricing Policies should obviously be deregulated.)
> 
> Regards
> PG
> ---
> Professor Peter Gerrand
> CEO Melbourne IT

Hi Peter

Your e-mail is a welcome read. I support the initiative no only because
it removes the current anomoly where many names have already been
registered but also because it removes some of the grounds for
registrations moving to .com domain to obtain that result. However I
don't see how you can arbitrate between submissions for the name and
suggest that the simple first come (subject to usual criteria) be
accepted. This will also have the added benefit of reducing delay in
decision.

Warm regards
Gary