From: Sean Scully 
Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 2004 2:47 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: geographic naming consultation

Dear Ms Lim,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this consultation.

1. Should the restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au be 
maintained? If so,
why?

I strongly believe that the restriction should remain.  Regardless of the 
OCOS project, geographic names should never be allowed to be used for 
commercial purposes in .net.au and .com.au.

They are community names and no single commercial body/business should be 
able to use these names exclusively in these name spaces. Not only is it 
unfair to the community but also to the many businesses that have the same 
geographic name included in their name!

Opening up these names in .com.au and .net.au would also confuse the public 
and communities about who can register what (particularly given the OCOS 
name space) and it creates unfair competition in two ways:

1: A commercial body could register the name and if they choose, set up a 
'town' or 'city' portal website in the name spaces (as we know, these name 
spaces are well known and promoted, unlike the OCOS project as yet, because 
it is yet to be implemented). There are no rules on what they should include 
on the portal site such as making sure they would be inclusive of the entire 
community etc. They could run this site for profit and be in direct 
competition to the 'true' community 'town' portal (on the OCOS name space) 
which are not-for-profit community entity (as per the OCOS policy rules to 
ensure no one gains exclusive commercial profit from something and belongs 
to an entire community!) and has had to thoroughly apply for and prove their 
'worth or value' in being able to represent and involve the community to 
hold that name on behalf of the community. Which is a worthy due process, 
particularly due to the high value of these names to the community!

2: Only one commercial body can get the name.  This is actually unfair to 
all the other commercial entities that may have the geographic name in their 
business name.

There is no reason that a commercial entity cannot register their business 
name now. eg: The Gym at Gymea could have gymeafitness.com.au.  or 
gymeagym.com.au.  If commercial entities want to register their business 
name and truly reflect their business activities then this can already be 
achieved.  The only thing a commercial entity would have to gain by 
registering the geographic name on its own is to keep the name to themselves 
and sap off the community's reputation and qualities (which is in my opinion 
cyber squatting) and so no other Gymea business can get it. Or to set up a 
town/city portal...which should be done by an appropriate representative 
body in the correct methods, ie: the OCOS model/name space, which has 
brilliant value adds such as state level entry sites and is an entire fresh 
and logical geographic methodology for name spaces!

The OCOS model creates the ability for all local businesses in an area to be 
linked to the geographic name anyway, by being inclusive of the community - 
so everyone wins!

Even some of the commercial interests that have made comment on this 
consultation have admitted that they would exploit these names if they 
become available!

The OCOS model and the name space under development is recognised as a 
highly worthwhile and incredibly visionary world first model.  The original 
model strongly endorsed continued protection of geographic names in .com.au 
and .net.au, but allowed an appropriate method for 'community' to use their 
valuable asset (their name) through the new innovative name space. Even 
other countries are eagerly awaiting progress and admire Australia for not 
taking the expediate and quick short term economic gain of selling off the 
geo names in .net.au and .com.au and are serious about implementing this 
brilliant model (I note Prof Hyland's response to the consultation as one 
example of this). The OCOS model needs to be carried out and implemented 
properly. I can only assume that with auDA's commitment to it thus far that 
auDA would have to agree with this and not risk jeopardising all the work 
done to date.

Geographic names still need to be protected in .com.au and .net.au for all 
of the same reasons they have been in the past. I would go so far as to say 
the few names that have been registered (before the restriction was put in 
place) should be considered for alternative and more appropriate names for 
their business purposes.

I would hate to think that auDA is indulging in this consultation (which I 
can see on past records similar consultation on this issued has been carried 
out a number of times since 1999 all with the result of not releasing these 
names) for pure economic pressure/purposes so that a small few can gain 
financially out of the exercise at the expense of all Australian communities 
and at the potential dilution of the brilliant OCOS model.

Let's not go down the same path as other countries.  We remain in the 
position to set the world standard here. Lets make the OCOS name space the 
best it can be and keep geographic names protected in. com.au and .net.au. 
Lets lead the world in this area.  It can be something auDA can remain proud 
of in the future.

Sincerely,
S Scully
SN Scully & Co
Gymea, NSW