] Meliza Smith <smithm&#167;callawrie.com.au> wrote:
] 
] > I think Doug meant generic TMs like "Soap" for washing powder, rather than
] > generic words used on unrelated goods like "Tide" for washing powder.  I
] > agree, we have to know what AUDa means by "generic". Is there any indication
] > of this in the report?

The review of Name Policy by that Panel is intended to have lots of community
input.  If you want to express a view on what "generic" should be, then you
can make a submission to the Panel and/or tell the DNS list (as long as the
DNS list doesn't end up with too large a volume of traffic).  But read the
Panel's report first, obviously.

Presumably the Panel will define generic (or decide to remove the criterion
and explain how to do that transition) in the second round of this report,
after they have considered public input.

Bear in mind that domains like com.au have no notion of classes like TMs do.
Think about "Drive" washing powder (Trade Marked by Unilever) for instance.

Patrick Corliss wrote:
] Of course, it is also possible just to open it up completely to all applicants
] on a "first come, first served" basis but this would invite the problems
] experienced in the global TLD space of all names being snapped up by domain
] name "investors".

Some people describe the current com.au policy as "first come, first served"
(among qualified applicants submitting valid applications), and might call
a policy like the gTLD .com something like "open slather" to distinguish it.


There is an interesting (well written) article on generic domain names at
	http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3185398.html

Any views in this email are personal only.

__________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management