Hi All,

Good point by several.  Allow me to qualify.

Re the registration of names - in any environment.

I totally agree - the registrar has no RIGHT to vary the price depending on
the individual potential and perceived future value of a particular.  They
have chosen to be in the 'name' registration game.  They set their standard
price across the board based on what the market will bear or the competition
will bear.

They have no RIGHT to play both games.

Kerry Henry
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Cameron <dcameron&#167;coolahddg.com.au>
To: Dns Discussion listserver <dns&#167;auda.org.au>
Date: Thursday, 22 February 2001 9:27
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS and "end user" requirements


>Hi Mark, Kerry and all,
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't Mark's point that some names do have
>more goodwill value than others, however it's not the role of the selling
>authority to determine what that value is?
>
>I.e. If I (could) register the business name "business.com" it would cost
>the same as registering the name "joeandbillsfruitandveg"... there may be
>more value to certain businesses in the first name (just as there may be
>more value to other businesses in the second), however the price is the
same
>because business names are provided on a basis of equity... the cost is the
>same... it's a matter of first in best dressed... the Government (or rather
>us, through our ability to vote for respective Governments), recognised the
>need for equitable distribution of business names many years ago, hence
this
>is the system we have.
>
>Shouldn't domain names be provided on the same basis of equity?
>
>The fact that someone can purchase a name (either a business or domain
name)
>cheaply, and subsequently "value add" to that name thereby making a profit
>from it's sale... is the very nature of business... it's what we do... take
>raw materials, value-add, and sell for a profit.
>
>Inequity would be highly evident if someone decided to change the rules,
and
>make a company pay more for the "raw materials" simply on the assumption
>they will make an increased profit over someone else... there would be
>nothing different in this practice than my selling an apple to my neighbour
>for a dollar... and selling another apple to his neighbour for a hundred
>dollars.... on the assumption that the apple is worth more to his neighbour
>because he happens to like apples!!
>
>Someone here wrote that a Domain Name is not a directory service (quite a
>few times). May I write, that a Domain Name is a Domain Name is a Domain
>Name (et-all).
>
>The value is in the nature of the business making the purchase... not in
the
>name itself (banks.com would be worth nothing to me, unless I purchased the
>domain for the sole purpose of reselling it) - hence all domain names
should
>be the same price to the initial purchaser on the proviso that they cannot
>be resold for (??) years, or if voluntarily lapsed, placed back into the
>public pool. However if a person value-adds to a domain name... good luck
to
>them!
>
>Cheers, Don
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author. 369 subscribers.
>Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>
>