On 19 May 2004 at 10:46, Kim Davies wrote:

> 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 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.
> 


Funnily enough this domain name was drawn to wider public attention in early 
January 2003 by crikey.com.au

It was then the home of what some would refer to as adult interest material.

At the time it was  registered through Melbourne IT in the name of what was then a 
non-existent entity ie. "Basketball Times Pty Ltd"  

Coincidentally I had a client who wanted this domain name at the time and I lodged a 
request to Melbourne IT for the deregistration of the domain. Subsequently they 
advised me that the registration had been regularised within the terms of auDA rules. 
As one can see by going to ASIC a company "Basketball Times Pty Ltd ACN 103 459 
338" was formed in late January 2003 and the domain record was changed to reflect 
this.

It seems to me that although we are all entertained and/or irritated by Mr Norrish's 
activities that it would be unfair to deprive Basketball Times Pty Ltd of the benefits of 
the registration - the company was first in and therefore best dressed.

In early February 2003, I queried both Melbourne IT and Mr Chris Disspain CEO of 
auDA as to how the original registration was allowed to go through. I am still waiting 
for the courtesy of a response. It would be good if both a rep. of Melbourne IT and 
that well known list lurker Chris Disspain would share their views (even at this late 
stage) on this with the list and perhaps why auDA rules are applied selectively.

cb