Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

From: Kim Davies <kim§cynosure.com.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:41 +0800
Hi Larry,

Quoting Larry Bloch on Friday March 25, 2005:
| 
| What I think Vic is articulating (and if so I agree) is that we have to
| ensure policy serves the customer, not what armchair enthusiasts think
| customers want. From the front line, what we see is that:
| 
|  - registrants don't understand the restrictions placed on them by the
| policy
|  - they see the policy as useless red tape for no practical benefit
|  - they want to be able to sell their names 
|  - they want names to be registered in real time

I think you are missing a few things, most notably:

- they want to get the name they want for the least expense

All of the 4 points above you mentioned I absolutely agree with from a
consumer point of view, but there is a trade-off involved which involves
balancing these wants. Not everyone will agree with these trade-offs,
after all the "perfect" consumer wants everything for nothing, but that
is why we have these discussions.

| Certainly requiring a business registration to identify a registrant is
| useful. But beyond that, if .au has acceptable use policies, and if
| registrants warrant that they have a close and substantial connection to a
| domain name, I fail to see how it is the regulators role to decide in
| particular instances or via policy in general if a registration infringes
| the rights of another party. That's ultimately a matter for intellectual
| property law and dispute resolution mechanisms.

As touched on by others, DRP mechanisms create a barrier to entry - only
large players usually fight those battles. It is a tricky one, because
if DRP mechanisms are too accessible, they can become problematic in
other ways.

| Much of the current restrictive policy is a response to the scammers and
| cyber squatters. Those issues are largely resolved, and a loosening of
| policy to meet the expectations of the market is appropriate.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the analysis that because the
problems have largely abated, that is a reason to throw things open. On
the surface it seems like deciding to stop locking doors because the
crime rate is down. It is quite possible that would invite the problem
to (re)surface.

| .AU is undervalued because normal market behaviour that maximises value
| from the assets in the market is absent.

Undervalued for whom?

| We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. In our efforts to prevent
| cyber squatting, we have destroyed value and missed _part_ of the
| opportunity to create a vibrant and meaningful .AU.

It's all about finding a balance. You destroy value and opportunity in
other ways if you make .au a completely free market. The domain space is
a finite resource that needs to last, for all intents and purposes, in
perpetuity - without overly penalising people based on how late or early
they entered the so-called "market". Pure capitalism favours driving
resource exhaustion. Finding a perfect balance is a tough ask.

kim
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Aug 30 2014 - 04:00:14 UTC