On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 05:29:07PM +1000, Ron Stark wrote:
> By the way, ANZ *does* trade internationally. Sydneyferries.info is a
> complementary domain name to sydneyferries.com.au as part of their brand
> protection strategy, and I hazard a guess that the only reason that the
> State Transit Authority doesn't own sydneyferries.com is that some cyber
> squatter already has it.  Cityrail.info is but one domain name to support
> cityrail.com.au.  The NSW Government extensively trades overseas  - ever
> heard of "tourism"?
> 
> The examples you've used only serve to weaken your argument, not strengthen
> it.

No, they don't. Just to take a specific example, cityrail.info is what
they use to brand themselves. None of the stickers, various large
posters, etc. use the "local" domain.

What matters is how they brand themselves? Does anz brand itself as
anz.com.au or anz.com? 

> On the other hand a small Australian business with a solely Australian
> market has no use for anything other than a .au name, and to try to sell
> them a .com in those circumstances is, I think, predatory.

That's the strangest, argument I've ever heard. Convincing an
organisation that a cheaper, easier to obtain domain is predatory.

As a few people have already stated; I think you'll find the 'market' no
longer attaches as much importance to whether an organisation has a
'.au' at the end of the name.

Regards,
Anand

-- 
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"