Gov "cybersquatting" claim taken to town

The owner of a number of Australian state domain names has hit back at the NSW government's move to -protect" geographical sites from commercial interests, saying a recent decision by the WIPO proves private entities can be legitimate owners of such sites.

The NSW government has set up a -one city one site" proposal to be presented to the nation domain name authority (auDA) for review, in which it seeks to stop commercial operators from owning geographical domain names.

In a recent announcement, the government called private entities which own common spaces on the Net -cybersquatters".

The allegations has angered Web site owner, Joyce Russ Advertising, which currently occupies brisbane.com, adelaide.com, perth.com, and melbourne.com.

-I wish to point out that this is not that simple, and my company is not cybersquatting, but is actively developing Internet portals for the domain names it holds," Joyce Russ Advertising director Peter Russ said.

Recently, Joyce Russ Advertising was cleared by the United Nations, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), of allegations made by the Brisbane City Council -- which was fighting for the control of Brisbane.com -- claiming that the company was cybersquatting on what it believed was rightfully their site.

In a previous report by ZDNet, Brisbane City Council said that even though Brisbane.com was not a registered trademark of the council, it believed it had -more rights to the name than the South Australian advertising agency".

A WIPO arbitration decision was made in May this year, dismissing the claim that the company didn't have legitimate interests in the Web site, finding Joyce Russ Advertising "not guilty of cybersquatting".

In regards to NSW Information Technology Minister Kim Yeadon's move to -protect" Australian geographic sites, Russ told ZDNet, -there's so many variables to domain names, the last time I looked it was a free market in Australia".

-Why is the government so interested in these domains is the question people should be asking," Russ said.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Advertisement

Talkback 4 comments

  1. The government was too slow to prevent this problem and in some cases clearly believes that if it can throw a bit of muscle and money at the issue, it will win. Wrong strategy. I'm amused by this, but also angered. Governments think they can t Anonymous -- 11/07/01

    The government was too slow to prevent this problem and in some cases clearly believes that if it can throw a bit of muscle and money at the issue, it will win. Wrong strategy.

    I'm amused by this, but also angered. Governments think they can take control of situations such as these and waste tax payers money in the process.

    It's good to see the legitimate little guys win. Tough cookies for the state!

  2. The One City One Site (OCOS) proposal did not come from any government. It has from from ordinary Australians in Bathurst who want to see ALL Australian communities have the right to have their own web address using their geographical place name in the .a Anonymous -- 11/07/01

    The One City One Site (OCOS) proposal did not come from any government. It has from from ordinary Australians in Bathurst who want to see ALL Australian communities have the right to have their own web address using their geographical place name in the .au domain.
    This is a brillant idea!
    It has nothing to do with American domain names!
    The OCOS proposal is looking after the public interest of every Australian community.
    It is not a government grab - OCOS proposal is
    "people power" protecting their Australian geographical place names for their communities. Nothing sinsister about that is there??
    Read the proposal and see for yourself..
    www.onecityonesite.org

  3. This article is quite laughable. Not only is it inaccurate in areas but it presents a bunch of extremely weak arguments against any .au geographic/community proposal. Firstly, OCOS is an 's proposal has simply been viewed by ALL Australian gov Anonymous -- 11/07/01

    This article is quite laughable. Not only is it inaccurate in areas but it presents a bunch of extremely weak arguments against any .au geographic/community proposal.

    Firstly, OCOS is an 's proposal has simply been viewed by ALL Australian governments (at Online Council last Friday)as a wonderful model to be endorsed for community use.

    I note someone elses comment against the proposal saying power to the little guys! Quite extraordinary when it is, in fact, the proposal made for the little guys. Everyone one of us who lives in a community!!

    The reality is that the big guys are large companies who want to control individuals and communities for thier own commercial advantage. IE: the advertising agency in mentioned in the article.

    But getting back to the article itself. Where the article totally misses the point is in differentiating between the international domain (ie .com) and the Australian domain (.au name space, eg: .com.au). OCOS is within the .au name space, where currently, noone can access geographic/community names. OCOS's proposal is brilliant. It means that valuable geographic names (and they are obviously valuable to many commercial entities)are reserved for the use of thier only true owners - the community! These assets then have the potential to be used best by thier true owners. What wonderful development tools - particularly for rural and regional Australia!

    Full points to OCOS. I reccommend anyone wanting to opose the idea to do some background research first. Read the proposal.

    One can only admire the independent OCOS group who have had the courage to stand up for every person in the Australian community.

  4. Govt interets in communities. One should ask why companies, like the one mentioned are SO interested in obtaining community names. One commercial entity should not have the right to a communities name. The true owner is the community itself. Anonymous -- 11/07/01

    Govt interets in communities.

    One should ask why companies, like the one mentioned are SO interested in obtaining community names. One commercial entity should not have the right to a communities name. The true owner is the community itself.

    I commend the govyt for supporting the independent OCOS prpoposal. It shows that they have communties interests at heart and not large overdominating companies!

    OCOS is spot on. Congrats to them!

Add your opinion


Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Alex Serpo Is green IT a marketing fad?
    It seems that green IT has dropped off the radar, with other technology issues moving to the fore. But was green IT ever a real technology movement, or was it just a marketing fad?
  • Array Gutless studios have the wrong target
    I have one word for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). Gutless.
  • Array NBN needs workers on board
    Without consensus on labour issues, the eventual winner of the NBN may end up as little more than a lame duck and a cashed-up symbol of the conflict between the desire for progress and the lack of mechanisms to deliver it.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured