Kim

You wrote "... it makes no sense for there to be a free transfer of domains
after registration, or to encourage a second-hand resale/cybersquatting market."

Perhaps you have not read the SETEL Public Policy Paper: No 1, 19 July 2002,
Transfers of domain name licences between Registrants, submitted to the auDA
Board in July 2002 <www.setel.com.au/publications/public/policy/001.htm>.  (BTW,
was this Paper considered by the auDA Board at this meeting?  It would appear
not from the August 2002 auDA Board minutes, as there is no mention of it
<www.auda.org.au/about/minutes/board-200208.html>.)

I submit that what is need is not a *free*, but an *orderly* secondary market in
.au domain name licences.

I wrote in a paper for my Masters (also reflected in the Public Policy Paper: No
1) based on much research and analysis:

"A key rationale for maintaining the prohibition on transfer was that removal
would encourage further domain name cybersquatting, hoarding and other forms of
undesirable conduct and thus cause harm.  Ironically, the longstanding practice
of selling commercially attractive domain name licences at fixed prices, below
their market value, has been a major factor contributing to and encouraging such
behaviour.  The risks of financial losses for speculators are small by contrast
with the financial gains.  Auctioning of commercially valuable domain name
licences and removal of the prohibition trading of licences can be an effective
way of dealing with such undesirable market conduct."

I stand by this statement, and challenge you and others to some healthy public
discussion and debate on this public policy issue.


Ian


--
Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL)
www.setel.com.au  mailto:ian.johnston&#167;setel.com.au
02 6258 3409 (B/F)  02 6259 7777 (B)  0413 990 112 (M)

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
advancing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim&#167;cynosure.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:35 AM
To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] RE: bizcatalyst.com.au


Quoting bw on Saturday September 21, 2002:
| No, I dont think the law (oops rule) should be in place,
| if wording is a way to avoid it, they will...
| why have such a rule in the first place?

Because Australia runs on a principle (that was reaffirmed last year
in public consultation) that domain names are given to those who
demonstrate their name (business name etc.) is connected with the domain
they are applying for, and there should be equitable access to such
domains for those that are eligible. If the domain is registered to an
entity on that basis, then it makes no sense for there to be a free
transfer of domains after registration, or to encourage a second-hand
resale/cybersquatting market.

Why don't you read through the historical documents that led to the
current policies? So far you don't seem to know anything about why
things are how they are - which makes it hard to take any of your
comments seriously (especially given the sheer number of emails you are
pushing out of little substance).

kim

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (361 subscribers.)