On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:16:14PM +1100, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> [nick andrew wrote...]
> > Register the name for free to the first prior applicant. If they
> > don't want it, continue down the list until you find an applicant
> > who wants it. If no applicants want it for free, then release it
> > for general registration.
> 
> What about those many people that do read the rules (or were properly
> advised by their supplier of domain name services), and didn't apply for a
> generic name in the first place?  Your proposal above is unfair to those
> that read and conform to the rules in place at the time.  

The (growing) generic name list was never published (until this auction,
of course). So somebody considering applying for domain name X cannot
know whether X is in the list, unless they apply for the name.

There's nothing in the rules which said that one cannot apply for a
generic name. Therefore applying for a generic name (and being
duly rejected) is still following the rules.

Assuming I wanted to register X.com.au, X being a probably generic
word, because I considered it valuable to my business in some way
(or perhaps X is my business name) ...

As a prudent applicant for a probably-generic X.com.au I might consider
that (a) the namespace is being artificially diminished by an
arbitrary and subjective policy, (b) this situation may change in
future, (c) there may be some special activity to release these
forbidden domain names, (d) being a prior-rejected applicant
or even the first rejected applicant may give me some benefit in
that activity, and finally (e) that a rejected application costs
nothing anyway, I might go ahead and attempt the application anyway.

> Perhaps to be fair we should start with the first person who ever registered
> a domain name, and offer them the complete list, and then move through all
> registrants in order of their applying for a domain name (greater than
> 200,000).  Given that each should have about 5 days to respond, we should be
> finished the process in about 2,700 years.

Is this an example of rebuttal by making an absurd counter-proposal?
No, your way wouldn't work.

Nick.