This is categorically not fair as:

This approach flies in the face of natural justice for those that 
actually read or knew the registration rules and thus did not apply 
for generic or reserved names.

It would be quite unjust to proceed in this way as the current rules 
would effectively enable a reservation process which it is clearly 
stated not to be.

I will stress again I have clients (and I place myself in this group 
by the way) who have clearly indicated they will proceed with legal 
action against the relevant authority if an auction is only allowed 
for people that have attempted to register a generic name in the past.

The rules and regulations have stated that a reservation process does 
not exist. By pursuing this option you are actually penalizing those 
who knew and understood the regulations. Who did not clutter the 
process with unnecessary applications just to be on the safe side.

By the way how would you cope with the telephone calls to the help 
desk about questionable domains. I have made a few and I would put 
money on not being the only one.

My suggestion:

1/ a general registration period that is publicized in the press. Say 
one month.
2/ If there are problems with a free for all the day it is announced 
should act as a cut off for existing relevant legal entities (if it 
is legal entity based of course). (Personally I think a land grab 
stamped could be rather fun to watch).
3/ Applications are taken and randomly given to those that have 
applied at the new price i.e., much lower than the current monopoly 
price..
4/ If no one applies then it just becomes available as per normal.
5/ This should only happen once the new players are in the registration market.

Quick sharp neat and fair. If you wanted to be pedantic you could 
email old applicants to notify them of the changes.

Matthew King


>The system that I originally wrote in 1996 for Melbourne IT did keep all
>rejections in a separate database, so there is a record.
>
>I know that the system was overhauled in 1999, but it would have a similar
>database pile for rejects.
>
>Robert Elz was in charge prior to that, and having studied his email system
>for dealing with COM.AU requests, I again know that there were records kept,
>but whether they still exist or not, I can't be sure, other than to say that
>I know that Robert did keep everything.
>
>At that time there were less than 9000 COM.AU domain names...
>
>If COM.AU were to move to be generic, then I have always thought that for
>any name that has been rejected in the past, there should be an auction,
>where each of the parties who had applied for the name in the past were
>informed of the auction, and these to be auctioned names were then sold over
>a 3 month period.
>
>This could easily be done through a system like EBAY.COM.AU and the profits
>then given to a charitable trust, or a fighting fund for general internet
>policy improval, or to fund AuDA
>
>There are a number of alternatives, but I think the above is by far the
>fairest mechanism...
>
>Andrew Heath
>Executive Director
>Blue Tongue Software Pty Ltd
>bluetongueR
>www.bluetongue.com
>Blue Tongue Software
>321 Queensberry Street
>North Melbourne Vic AU 3051
>P: +61 3 9320 8888 F: +61 3 9326 5701
>IMPORTANT NOTICE
>This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
>individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
>disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you have received this
>e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
>this e-mail from your system.
>E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
>information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
>incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
>liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
>arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required,
>please request a hard-copy version. Although information has been obtained
>from and is based upon sources BTS believes to be reliable, we do not
>guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions
>and estimates constitute judgment as of the date of this email and are
>subject to change without notice. This message is for informational purposes
>only.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew King [mailto:mking§cinfo.com.au]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2001 11:05 AM
>> To: dns§auda.org.au
>> Subject: Re: Melbourne IT's records
>>
>>
>> This approach flies in the face of natural justice for those that
>> actually read or knew the registration rules and thus did not apply
>> for generic or reserved names.
>>
>> It would be quite unjust to proceed in this way as the current rules
>> would effectively enable a reservation process which it is clearly
>> stated not to be.
>>
>> I know a number of my clients that would seriously consider legal
>> action against any party that allowed this.
>>
>> >The market will sort itself out post sale.  I understand that
>> Melbourne IT's
>> >records are sufficient to track request after they took over the formal
>> >management in Oct 96.  Maybe records exist before then.
>>
>>
>> Matthew King
>>
>>
>> CreativeInformation
>> Domain registrations, internet design, hosting and services.
>>
>> Tel:	61 02 9233 4471
>> Fax:	61 02 9233 2777
>> Mobile:	61 0411 303090
>> Email:	mking§cinfo.com.au
>> Web:	http://www.cinfo.com.au
>> ABN:	30 774 334 175
>>
>> --
>> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>> express permission of the author. 374 subscribers.
>> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
>> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.
>>
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author. 373 subscribers.
>Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.