From: Michael Merlin 
Sent: Friday, 28 April 2006 2:49 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Domain monetisation and the close and substantial connection
rule

Hello Jo,

I support inclusion of "domain monetisation" within the meaning of auDA’s "close and substantial 
connection" rule.

Multiple domain registration by one company for the purposes of monetisation is a valid, so long 
as trademarks are not infringed upon.

The responsibility of reporting 'typosquatter domains' should be the role of the individual 
trademark holders who feel they are being infringed upon.

I believe the extent of registration policing should be simply giving trademark holders a quick 
and easy recourse to defend their trademarked position by having the 'typosquatters' domain 
registrations deleted.

Attempting to heavily police .com.au domain registrations (beyond protecting trademark holders 
from typosquatters) might seem idealistically pure to people with socialist tendencies, but in 
my opinion, such heavy-handed policing would overstep the bounds of what is acceptable in our 
democratic and capitalist society.

Since the days of the great generic domain name auction years ago, up to the present day, the 
.com.au space is now fairly heavily registered, with respect to generic phrases and dictionary 
words.  Because there are such a large number of .com.au domains already registered, having this 
debate now is largely impractical.  As one previous responder suggested, "the horse has already 
bolted".

Another point worth considering:-  eligibility for domain registration by website usage/content 
would be an enormous administrative task!  Who would pay for this?  Not just the initial 
subjective 'judging' of eligibility, but also the subsequent resolution of disputes (which are 
bound to occur) as companies attempt to wrest control of the most popular keyword/dictionary 
domains from others.  In some cases such a change to the .com.au system would surely support 
"reverse-hijacking" of domain names.


In summary, I believe:

(a) Yes, include "domain monetisation" within the meaning of auDA’s "close and substantial 
connection" rule.

(b) If a particular domain registration is seen to be typosquatting then it is the job of the 
trademark holder to have the name deregistered through an easily accessible channel.  Protect 
the trademark holders, make it easy for them to have typosquatter names deleted, and prevent 
the re-registration of these deleted names for the time that the corresponding defendant's 
trademark remains active.

Kind regards,

Michael Merlin