>_From: David Keegel
> 
> ]  the rules are there to make the choice of domain name easier, not harder.
> ]  is it too much to ask that the domain name for a company is made
> ]  up of the name of that company? 
> 
> I certainly don't think so.
> 
> IMHO it is easier to explain that your domain name must be derived from
> your organisation name than it is to explain that some random person or
> rival organisation has decided to use your organisation's name as their
> domain name, because they thought it sounded kool or because they wanted
> to extort money out of you.
> 
> I imagine it would also tend to reduce the amount of legal action by
> taking a pro-active stance to keep the number of domain name conflicts
> to a minimum before they happen, rather than having to do this reactively
> when its too late.
> (That is, assuming the policies are applied fairly/equally.)

well why not simply ban all companies from having a domain
that would get rid of all legal issues. this is pretty much the crux
of problem, we have a few well intentioned people making everyone
suffer by making judgments in an area out of there expertise. this is
rather tragic really.

lets look at the problem. if someone uses your name you
have every right to use all availlable legal avenues to get it back.
the registries are not legal entities so should stay out making legal
calls. domain names are not legal names, nor trading names. they
carry no legal weight. neither does the issuing of them.

this kind of thing happens all the time in real life. there is a working
perfectly good mechanism to address this issue. clearly
its not up to the registrar, nor within the registrars scope to
adjudicate on the validity of name. further the names may infringe
tradmarks, even international or foreign trademakrs, again totally
beyond the scope of the current rules and totaly beyond the expertise
of any of the registrars to adjudicate on. nor should they be playing
judge on these issues. its wrong.

and even more importantly the registries allow shortening of the bussines
name, which carries, count them, zero legal value. ie it in fact
does not prevent name clashes, it in fact creates a more onerous
set of clashes, because now they are now enforced by the registry.
classic examples are micromagnetics p/l granted magnetics.com.au depsite
the fact there is a magnetics p/l. what domain should magnetics p/l
apply for? magnetics has every right to sue the pants of the
registry for infriging on its name more so then if the registrar took
no view on the trading validity of the name. can you see this subtle
point? the policy makers have blundered badly.

proactive elimination of legal disputes is a ruse, for the fact the
rules were there historicaly to protect the individual volunteers
who where the registries. fair enough, they had no protection.
times have changed and now is the time to update the system and remove
the restrictions for new registries. new registrars should be
allowed to choose for themselves what degree of protection they
require in terms of risk in issuing domains. it has nothing to do with
the dns to enforce restricted names.

what you are really saying  we should all suffer because the existing
.com.au registry is so scared of risk. we have to put up with
snail pace system, and frequent rejections and  high cost. well
thats unaceptable in this day and age.

Vic