Hello Don,

Thank you for pointing out the possible inconsistency.

> 
> The following (possible) contradiction in the response of 
> Melbourne IT to
> the Review of Policies was pointed out to me today, and I am 
> wondering if
> anyone can help to clarify this?
> 
> To cite from the response:
> 
> Melbourne IT opposes recommendation 4.4.2.
> There is currently no prohibition on 2 character domain names 
> within com.au
> so to introduce one would mean many licences would have to be 
> cancelled
> (snip)

Assuming recommendation 4.5.1 was accepted by the auDA Board, then existing
licence holders would be protected at time of renewal.  However, it makes it
difficult to explain to new domain name registrants that they can't register
a 2 character domain name when others have done so in the past.  To date, we
have not had any major problems or complaints about 2 character domain names
in ".com.au".

> 
> 4.5.1 Retrospectivity and prospectivity
> Changes to domain name eligibility and allocation policies 
> will not have
> retrospective effect for current domain name licence holders, 
> and will only
> apply to existing domain name licences at the time of re-registration.
> Melbourne IT supports recommendation 4.5.1.
> 
> (My summary) Melbourne IT opposes recommendation 4.4.2 on the basis of
> potential licence cancellations on a retrospective basis - however
> subsequently supports recommendation 4.5.1 stating that no 
> retrospective
> cancellations should occur.
> 
> Expanding this to another level, recommendation 4.5.1 is in itself
> contradictory, because it implies that retrospective changes will be
> enforced on existing domains at the time of re-registration 
> despite the same
> recommendation stating that current domain name licence 
> holders will not be
> subject to retrospective changes.

No the discussion under 4.5.1 in the Names Policy Advisory Panel report,
states that a domain name can be renewed by the current holder, but could
not be re-licenced by a new holder or transferred to a new holder.  Note
that at present names such as travel.com.au are able to be renewed, but
would not be able to be re-licenced by another company under the existing
rules (set by Robert Elz).  Thus we currently have this problem of new
domain name registrants complaining that the current policy is unfair, given
that generic names have been registered in the past.

Bruce Tonkin
>