My views overlap those of Danny Wise and Ari Maniatis. I understand and agree with Ari's frustration with the current system, but I think David has made some valid points. So, I'm going back to basics.

I agree with the statement that it is impossible to define a set which catches all generic names

If you:

1. accept the validity of the above statement;
2. agree that some generic names are now registered;
3. agree that generic names have at least the potential to be really valuable; and
3. want fairness and a level playing field in the area of domain name registration and ownership,

then it seems to me a logical conclusion that we must allow unrestricted access to all generic names (not including special cases justified on a case-by-case basis, eg, Sydney 2000 and similar).

If you do not accept the validity of the first statement, please post your definition of a set which catches all generic words. It will need to be able to cope with the fact that new generic words (or new, generic, uses for existing words) arise all the time, and the trend is increasing - eg, what did "email" mean 20 years ago? (hint for those too young or too virtual to remember: they made refrigerators), and what did "etrade" (or "e" or "i" + anything) mean 5 years ago? (hint for the very young:
it was probably a typo).

Or you could post a link to a list of all generic words. But I bet readers of this list would be able to find something at least arguably missing from, or wrongly included in, any such list. I say: why create arguments?

Assuming we can solve this problem (which I obviously believe won't happen very easily) we would then need to explain how we're going to, with fairness, strip the current owners of their generic domains (to leave them alone would be unfair to others). I suspect you might need a bit of muscle to get the owners to surrender etrade.com.au or news.com.au, just to name two examples.

Mark Davidson
Marshall Marks Kennedy Lawyers
Sydney


David_Wise§fhp.com.au wrote:

> I agree with Mark's comments and his conclusion.   There should be no restrictions on registration of generic domain names.
>
> Such restrictions are unnecessary given the infinite range of alternatives for any generic.   Also, it is impossible for such restrictions to be administered with an appearance of fairness, inviting  endless complaints about registration decisions and undermining the confidence of the Internet community in the ultimate registration authority.
>
> auDA will not be able to function without the confidence of the Internet community.
>
> David Wise