Leni Mayo wrote:
> ... 
> Note that the .com.au policy is FCFS in the end: Fred's Fish Shop Pty
> Ltd and Frank's Fine Sausages Pty Ltd can't both have ffs.com.au.
> Whether all the other stuff has any value or not I can't tell.
> Melbourne IT usually defend it by saying "we inherited it from someone
> else".
> 
Actually Leni, while it is true we at Melbourne IT inherited the policy
from KRE (with amendments as agreed by Robert following endorsement by
the DNS Forum in January), we  do not defend the policy only on those
terms. We actively support it as a particularly good policy - possibly
the best policy in the world for commercial DNs - in that it 
(1) protects the interests of its customers (legitimate businesses
registered to trade in Australia) 
(2) tends to minimise speculative hoarding  
(3) tends to markedly reduce the scope for trademark infringement,
without eliminating it entirely.

The current com.au General (Naming) Policy has the additional virtue of
providing a dispute resolution process, intended to encourage early
resolution of any disputes without the parties incurring massive legal
costs, particularly in the area of IP infringements. This appears to be
rare amongst DNAs, worldwide.

Having said all that, I continue to support the case for additional 2LDs
to meet those reasonable market needs not catered for (as well as those
catered for) by com.au, including the use of 2LDs without any
restrictive naming policy - e.g. for any product names - and the use of
2LDs for highly specialised categories - e.g. for registered trademarks.
(In all cases a dispute resolution policy is highly desirable.) 
The Internet should continue to be developed to serve the needs of its
end users, and not be overly constrained by its history.

Regards
PG