auDA "grossly negligent" says domain registrar CEO

Stephen Withers
Monday, 20 April 2009 11:12

Business IT - Technology

The same year, Bloch and Disspain disagreed also over who should be consulted on the 'domain monetisation' issue. Bloch apparently felt that only domain registrants should have a say, while auDA and Disspain took the view that ordinary users were also entitled to contribute to the policy.

And in February 2008, Bloch criticised efforts by auDA to act against speculative trading in domain names.

These disagreements seem rooted in the two opposing views of the domain name space. One side sees it as a resource to be mined, the other (which includes the original .au administrator) sees it as a public resource that should be conserved.

Successive policy changes have generally favoured the former group - which apparently (and understandably) includes most registrars. For example, .com.au names originally were required to be closely derived from the name of the businesses registering them.

The extension to trademarks and names that are "closely and substantially connected to the registrant" comes close to open slather.

For example, "Raise a Glass" is related to a charitable appeal by the RSL and Legacy. But the phrase has been trademarked by Foster's (a participant in the appeal), and the company has also registered the raiseaglass.com.au domain name.

What would have been wrong with raiseaglass.fosters.com.au, raiseaglass.rsl.org.au or raiseaglass.legacy.com.au as permitted by the old arrangements - apart from the fact that the domain registrars wouldn't have got any additional business?

But back to Bloch's comments on the Bottle Domains case - see page 4.