Leni,

>.....wondering whether the ambiguity in the .com.au rules is being
>maintained and defended specifically to keep out competition in DNA
>services within that domain.  The notion of licensing technology
>from MelbourneIT in order to keep these bizarre rules in place is
>ludicrous.

>There is an argument that the present rules serve a purpose in
>maintaining some "brand" value to .com.au.  If so, then that must
>be balanced against the needs of future registrants who deserve the
>opportunity to work with unambiguous rules.  And if the rules can't
>be automated simply, then how can a customer hope to understand
>them?

>I'd like to see a commitment to a middle ground, where the rules
>are changed only in order to become unambiguous.  Would the
>business community have a problem with that?

Hmm, Leni, you must have had a different interpretation from me :)
My understanding was that:

* we were attempting to remove any ambiguity in the rules (else
competition cannot work)
* there would be nothing that required licensing from Melbourne IT
* that the rules must be capable of being automated simply (else
competition cannot work)

Yet another example of how easy it is for people to interpret the
same thing differently.  Damn, those computers have it easy, only
having to deal with unambiguous positive and negative charges :)

Regards, Mark


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 09/01/97  17:39:40    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *