Thank you gentlemen,

You have clarified what appeared to be contradictory, and yes, it was the
summary that was misleading.

In agreement with your comments Bruce, recommedation 4.5.1. does seem to
offer an enormous potential for litigeous challenge, to cite a fairly common
example:

Company "A" is the current holder of a domain name subject to 4.5.1. The
company uses this domain as a marketing mechanism of high value, though it
is due for re-registration in a few months. Company "B" acquires company "A"
under the normal regulations of a corporate acquisition - disbanding company
"A", however retaining brands and marketing mechanisms possibly worth
millions of dollars.

Is company "B" able to re-register the Domain?

In reality I feel the registrars would have to look favourably on this
scenario and grant the registration (or face a bank of lawyers) - however in
so doing, wouldn't they then be setting a precedent that any company can
register these domains? (or face another bank of lawyers?).

Having been involved in the formulation of a Staturory Act for the NSW
Emergency Services, the key issue for us was always that of contest, not
content - the challenge is make the Act as workable as possible within the
constraints of negating every possible contest under other legislation. In a
Statutory framework it is easier, because Australia has what's known as a
"Heirarchy of Acts" (and easier still for emergency legislation because this
is "Top Tier" legislation) - some Acts take precedent and this is
acknowledged and referenced in the Act under construction. The "powers" of
the Act are constrained by the heirarchy, so it's relatively simple to avoid
legal contest - the process was a matter of inviting the administrators of
other statutory regulations to comment on the proposed content so that
appropriate cross-references could be incorporated. Of course it then
becomes difficult when the draft is opened for public comment, because many
more changes need to be made... however this is the manner in which Acts are
constructed.

I'm wondering if the auDA panel have access to this resource, or what
mechanisms you employ to ensure the recommendations are free from potential
contest? - Certainly the concept of creating community "rules" outside of
the statutory framework must offer some particular challenges!

Cheers, Don