All I can say is in the beginning all the people looking for domain names, walked through the desert for a period of 40 days and 40 nights, when they came across the great shrine.

These multituds of thousands fell to their knees and said

"Ooga Booga Good Buddy... Ooga Booga..."

When domain names fail, thank goodness for IP addressing

The cost effective solution...


But on serious note how many people have recived this email, similar....  

To: �Applicant�

We advise that the domain name net.com.au has been withdrawn from offer.

Names or words that are prohibited from being registered are, among other things, existing generic top level domains.

Please see auDA's reserved list policy at http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-11.pdf 

My apologies for any inconvenience caused.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael-Pappas" <auda&#167;michael-pappas.com>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [DNS] Solution to Name Registration


> > With regards to Submissions, I made all my submissions to auDA's
> > previous  name - ADNA which shut down and later changed names to auDA.
> > It's good to  see not much has changed since 1997.  (Maybe ask for the
> > archives, surely  they still exist - I know I have them.)
> 
> There are archives, http://www.auda.org.au/archive/adna/
> 
> >>This is all well and good but I can see issues that can arise in the
> >>fact that there are differing types of registarions within each state.
> >>Using your example 'JOE BLOW' is a registered business in NSW, also JOE
> >>BLOW is a registered charity in NSW and also a registered association.
> >
> > They can't use the SAME NAME.  Please do find ONE example of a Trade
> > Name,  Charity and Association that all have the same name that are not
> > made up of  the same board or partners.
> >
> 
> Example
> 
> LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY 004224364
> LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY (Registered charity.)
> 
> Who gets the name here... why should either be restricted to use LCM in
> referring to their company?
> Or
> 
> Should they be restricted to referring to there respective organisations as
> 
> LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.nsw.au
> LITTLECOMPANYOFMARY.org.au
> 
> What gives the business more right over the state name.
> 
> > All three registries are managed by the NSW Department of Fair Trading.
> >  As  such, the data is contained in one register and only UNIQUE
> > non-conflicting  names can be created.
> 
> There are similar names and I am presuming that you are suggesting that
> the rules would mean that you have to get your full registered name
> .nsw.au and you have no choice.
>  NSW BN97760386 THE DOMAIN NAME MACYOURDAY
>  NSW BN97762066 THE DOMAIN NAME MCD
>  NSW U5604003 DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
> 
> I see no reason why all the three above have same right to use
> domainnameservices.com.au or even nsw.au
> > At any rate, an Association would register in ASN.AU and a charity in
> > ORG.AU
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > So there is STILL no conflict (except assn's and charities across
> > multiple  states, but come on, surely we have enough brain power to
> > even solve that one?)
> 
> Well yes, but your now saying that asn's and org's that only run in NSW or
> VIC have no rights to the nsw.au or vic.au names, when it can be seen very
> clearly that they do.
> >
> >>Who has the right to the name, why does a business have more propritity
> >>right to use the state name than an charity or even an association?
> >
> > That point is mute as noted above.
> >
> 
> You may think that it's mute, when I can only see that your suggestion
> outs us under lock and key, stifling, marketing, forward thinking business
> plans and creative personal sites. We do not need to be told to the point
> of no choice... choice is our right, internet a freedom and one that we
> should not stagnate with a ball a chain to those who want to use it.
> >> > Companies - that is those incorporated under Federal law -
> >> > Corporations Law  - who have trade rights throughout the
> >> > Commonwealth of Australia can  register in com.au which I guess
> >> > means more "commonwealth.au" more than  commercial, right?
> >>
> >>This would only give companies an unfair advantage in the .com.au space
> >>that directly relates to the .com space.
> >
> > No it doesn't.  Does having the phone number 12345678 give you an
> > unfair  advantage over someone with 87654321?
> >
> 
> Really it's a bad example because you can't have that number.
> 
> It can be said that it does matter though. Getting people to remember your
> number is the key. Easier to see the 123... and recogonise what you saw
> that backwards...
> > Does having a fruit shop on the corner of Archer and Victoria Avenue
> > have  some advantage over one in Chatswood Chase?
> >
> 
> Don't know that area, but it can be said that a specific corner or peace
> of real estate has a definite advantage over another. Some have more and
> some have less.
> > Does having the phone number (02) 8825 6111 give me more advantage over
> >  someone with the phone number (03) 8825 6111?
> >
> > Lets get serious.  What newspaper do you buy?  SHM, Telegraph?  Which
> > one  has the "unfair" advantage?
> >
> > What computer do you use?  PC or a Mac?  What operating system?
> >
> > We can go on for months like this, the reality is there is NO unfair
> > advantage if people are HONEST about the process.
> 
> You are right this can go on and on and on, there is answers for each one.
> It still remains that certain names have an advantage in the DNS over
> others.
> You are protesting that we take people with ligimate claims to the names
> they own and take them back giving them to larger corporate to their
> favor... I find that unfair.
> I know and deal with a lot of name holders that would and rightly so sue
> if such a thing happened as years of building a company on a name fall in
> the matter of change over..
> > The problem is the last 5 years the entire system has been abused to
> > the hilt.
> 
> Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.
> 
> > MIT have ripped everyone off since day one.  Connect.COM.AU charged
> > with  managing NET.AU supposedly for NETWORK naming, started door to
> > door street  sales selling any name anyone would buy.
> 
> Well maybe in over charging but everyone.. the license fee is a bit high
> but what is wrong with door to door sales.. I used to make a dollar and
> feed my self like that once upon a time.. also I doute very much that they
> sold the name to anyone who would buy with out having the policies
> filled..
> > The problem is not in "com.au" being an unfair name, it's in the fact
> > that  idiots go around and promote name space in an unfair manner.
> >
> 
> Hopefully we can see a stop to this with the new rules.
> 
> >>People sometimes mistakenly type the wrong thing, now for good or bad
> >>this  does happen and people have differing options on it.
> >
> > So?  Does that mean if they mistakenly dial a wrong number Telstra
> > should  refund the call charges?
> >
> > Gosh I use to have the number 482 1111 and got hundreds of daily calls
> > for  481 1111.  Trying to sell the calls to Pizza hut failed so I sold
> > them to  Domino's instead.  Is that an UNFAIR advantage?
> 
> No... not sure what you are getting at... you had a good number and you
> sold it.. well done.. some people may have told telstra to give them
> another number.. some may have started a making piazzas and others would
> have simply unplugged the phone.
> >>(some take advantage & some try to protect there interests against the
> >>practice)
> >
> > Sadly this is true, and it's up to the supposed "self regulators" to
> > solve  this problem.  However, instead of going to a little trouble and
> > getting  some TV advertising space to EDUCATE the consumer, auDA will
> > spend it money  on airfares, Christmas parties and other useless
> > expenses.
> >
> > Or are you going to say auDA has NEVER paid for ANYONE'S airfare- EVER?
> 
> Now here I totally agree and I can only feel that the auDA should have
> been using funds to educate the market via TV, radio and Mail.. NOT
> EMAIL..
> This should have happened months prior to the go-live date..
> 
> 
> >>This would only help companies to secure domains that have high value
> >>in type in value and take this away from the smaller companies who rely
> >>on these domains to bring in business with a minimal cost to the
> >>business.
> >
> > So is ABC Pty Limited for valuable than ABC (Registered in NSW) ??
> >
> 
> I'm not referring to the value of the company or business but the value in
> having a good name can be to a business. (On paper ABC P/L is mroe then
> ABC (NSW), socially ABC P/L may fall far behind the family run ABC (nsw),
> value of a company can be argued in may way but is not what we are
> debating)
> >>Same question applies here. What gives a company propriety rights over
> >>the name more than a business of the same name?
> >
> > And that's my solution.  NONE.  Because xyz.com.au is a company
> > incorporated under corporations law and xyz.nsw.au is a trade name
> > registered under the NSW Business Names Act.
> >
> > SIMPLE.  No confusion and there is NO conflict.
> 
> We seem to go around in circles.. please read from the top to get my
> thoughts.. there is a conflict that came about with state run name in a
> commercial space.
> Take the .us domain space... they ran on state.us structure... not any
> more.. after expensive reviews it was deemed not to be a good idea because
> of confusion and dilution of the .us name space. This is what you suggest
> will be doing to the .au...
> I'll leave it there as we could go on for ever and I think that most will
> know where we are coming from.. both with our respective views.
> Regards,
> 
> Michael-Pappas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
> author, further information at the above URL.  (335 subscribers.)
> 
>