] Quoting Craig Oehlers on Wednesday May 19, 2004:
] | 
] | 1. The complaintant is planning to have bt.com.au deleted altogether 
] | and become unavailable by any applicant;
] | 2. The complaintant is under the impression auDA will sacrifice the 
] | integrity of the auDA policy under the weight of probably a very large 
] | company; or
] | 3. The complaintant is making the complaint without understanding auDA 
] | allocation and eligibility policy
] | 
] | Any thoughts on this situation?
] 
] I would have to say 1 or 3. You are correct that if they succeed, the
] domain in question should effectively be locked up, as it is no longer
] grandfathered. #1 could be possible if they want to stop people going to
] it for confusions sake.

I would agree with Kim here. 
 
] I am not sure whoever the complainant is, but I doubt they can asset
] they have sole rights to "BT". Both Bankers Trust and British Telecom
] spring to mind when I hear BT.

The concept of "sole rights" does not arise for auDRP.
Basically the complainant needs to prove that they have rights to the
name and that the respondent does not have any right to the name.
(And bad faith by the respondent.)

___________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cybersource.com.au>  http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
 Cybersource P/L: Linux/Unix Systems Administration Consulting/Contracting