From: Peter Bradstock 
Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2004 12:29 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Review of auDA Policy - Restriction on geographic names in
com.auand net.auDe 

Dear Ms. Lim,

The way I see it, since under ASIC rules I'm allowed to have the name Gunpowder, I don't 
see why I shouldn't be entitled to register the domain name as well...I remember one of 
the arguments against changing the geographic place names policy was a concern about 
'passing off' but as far as place names are concerned, I consider that spurious (and a 
little unfair, since you can have a "Sydney concrete service" business name or similar...
as for the passing off/unfair competition thing, I think that boat has sailed - there is 
a www.sydney.com and has been for years...

There is also a lot of other unfortunate unplanned fallout from this policy - I remember 
somebody opposed to changing the regimen, from some government organisation associated with 
place names, actually had the surname Windsor. Under the current policy, he wouldn't be 
able to register the name if he had a business of that name, and he wanted www.windsor.com 
as there is at least one Windsor in NSW and who knows how many other states.  It's all very 
well for a person contemplating a new business to come up with a name that they can customise 
to domains that are currently available, but for a business that has been around for a long 
time, it may not be so easy.

I think the geographic names policy is past its "use-by date", and the demand for these 
names, as they are associated with the places themselves, is, in my opinion, highly 
overestimated.  Certainly it's possible that someone in the tourism business might want 
Sydney.com.au but I'm sure it would be considered a 'premium name' and would fetch an 
appropriate price...and I'm not entirely convinced that the registration of desirable 
domain names for government profit is entirely appropriate anyway.  I am very glad of 
the anti-squatting regulations in place (although I suspect they are generally easily 
circumvented) as they have restored a measure of equity to the mix, I wouldn't want to 
see the situation that exists in the US brought here.

The new second level domains (2LDs) for Australian states and territories - act.au, 
nsw.au, etc more than adequately cater for 'official' purposes - and the likely registrants 
are either going to be Councils, or Tourism organisations, and the added benefit of the 
xxx.nsw.au designation is that people will be able to tell which are the 'official' sites 
of such places. In terms of councils, most have already got an online presence and name 
anyway, and many have adopted formats like 'XYZcouncil' anyway.

The unintended fallout of the current policy (as it applies to my case, for
example) I think creates an unfair and unnecessary burden on those individuals and 
businesses unfortunate enough to share a name with a place - as I say, I believe if a name 
is acceptable to ASIC (Australian Securities & Investment Commission,) it should be 
acceptable to AUDA.

Should you wish any further information from me, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,


Peter J Bradstock

Managing Director,  Gunpowder Pty Ltd