The following is one most constructive comments to dat on this issue !!!!

WELL STATED ...

>On the other hand,  I came away cynically 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?  So sure, some names will be
>rejected where they might have previously been accepted, but the rules
>have been tightened before, as exemplified by travel.com.au which
>wouldn't pass muster today.  Those who belive in .com.au brand-value can
>be pleased by the rules becoming even more exclusive.

Cheers, BK.