From: Netfleet Pty Ltd 
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 3:10 PM
To: Jo Lim
Subject: May 2007 Issues Paper

Dear Jo,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the latest auDA policy review.  

Regarding direct registration under .au 

Despite the inevitable confusion that this would cause in the short term, the 
long term benefits would be significant.  

The issue of comparative brevity (4 digits less) should not be understated 
(imagine how many times .com is typed, printed and spoken in relation to .com.au 
domain names).  The Extension .au would also be immediately clearer to 
international web users as being the Australian extension... direct registration 
is the global standard nowadays.  

This opening up would need to be carefully managed with existing TM/brand name 
holders and equivalent com.au domain name holders granted a sunrise period in 
which to register equivalent domain names.  We believe this sunrise period should 
however exclude certain generic premium domain names (perhaps similar to those 
that were reserved until the generic domain auction a few years ago) which should 
instead be released by ballot much like the geographical domain name release a 
couple of years ago. 

Changing the policy rules for asn.au. com.au etc 

The eligibility rules and the allocation rules generally work well and should not 
be altered.  

The misspelling policy should be scrapped as it is too hard for auDA to manage.  
It should be left to brand name holders to contest if they feel that a domain name 
has been registered in bad faith.  Determining whether a particular domain name is 
a deliberate misspelling of a company's name is nigh on impossible to prove with 
certainty.  The same restriction would certainly not apply with the registration 
of business names, say or allocation of telephone numbers.  For example the domain 
name www.acc.net.au was deemed a misspelling of www.abc.net.au last month.  This 
domain has been in use since 1998 but only now when you completed an audit of our 
domain names did you believe it fell foul of the policy.  Proving it wasn't a 
misspelling of abc.net.au was impossible.

Selling domain names 

We are wholeheartedly in favour of allowing this.  

It is our belief that this will create a whole new industry adding to the economy 
and contributing significantly to the Australian domain space.  

It would enable new companies. for example, to actually buy a catchy domain name 
for their business rather than the current system where serious compromise is 
necessary to hand register anything that is currently available.  A new ambitious 
business can work hard, buy or lease prestigious physical premises, spend money 
on marketing but is severely limited when it comes to creating a memorable website. 

There is no reason to prohibit a secondary market.  This doesn't occur in any other 
mainstream market.

It will encourage the creation of better websites on the Internet as a secondary 
market will reduce the number of monetised sites and, importantly, unresolved 
domain names which are currently a blight in the .au namespace (nothing is as 
worthless to a web user than a web page "this page can not be displayed...") 

Domain names are often referred to as virtual real estate and we believe that to 
be an apt description.  Real estate has been traded for thousands of years to the 
satisfaction of millions of buyers, sellers and lessors.  Imagine if an equivalent 
ban had occurred on real estate over all these years - how many derelict, abandoned 
and mismanaged properties would there be? 

Relaxation on this policy would reduce the workload for both auDA and the auDRP.  
It would reduce the incidence of reverse domain name hijacking and facilitate 
mediation between two parties with competing claims to a domain name without 
necessarily going to formal proceedings.  Eg the 'complainant' accepts that the 
domain name owner has expended time, effort and money in development of the domain 
in good faith and therefore is happy to compensate rather than be forced to make a 
formal challenge.

Lastly, we would favour the introduction of an ombudsman to act where there are 
disputes between auDA a domain name registrants.  Disputes (especially minor issues) 
like this are inevitable and currently the only option to registrants who feel they 
have been 'wronged' is expensive litigation.  A higher authority to oversee such 
matters would be a sensible move. 

Thank you for your consideration - we look forward to the results,

Kind regards

Netfleet