At 09:34 31/12/96 +0000, you wrote:
>As well as social costs, I see the trading of domain names as involving some 
>considerable benefits. I also believe that trading is inevitable, and needs 
>not just to be recognised as such, but accomodated by our registration 
>authorities. 
>
>After all the supply of unique com.au domain names is limited, and so there 
>will inevitably be competing demands for particular names. 

The supply of unique names for businesses is also limited, but that doesn't
mean we are scrambling to create new business authorities.  While I wouldn't
go so far as suggesting (as I did in a previous post) that making
organization domain names identical to their real company names (with
.com.au tacked on the end), the principle of being more specific in the
choice of a domain name still stands.  Sure there will be conflicts in the
domain names organizations would _like_, when we went to start this company
we went through a list the length of my arm before we got one that wasn't
taken... getting the appropriate domain registered was comparatively
painless.  Not once did we consider buying somebody else's name (perhaps
that was because we didn't have the money to entertain that option... :) but
the point is when people can't get the name they want because its already
taken they will usually pick another.

In the situation at hand an organization obviously can't go off on a totally
different angle and choose a completely different name to represent
themselves on the Internet.  But I would be shocked if there was any
noticeable number of cases where no reasonable alternative existed in the
DNS that was within the guidelines even as they are now.

>Trading resolves the competing demands by awarding a name to those willing to 
>pay the highest price for it. 

..snip..

>My inclination is to think that it would be better to encourage less 
>restrictive com.au policies and to accomodate and facilitate trading in com.au
>names, rather than to encourage the establishment of new second level domains,
>such as biz.au. 

Agreed, less restrictive (but not unrestricted).  Trading of names is not in
itself inherently wrong of course, but if we create an environment in which
Domain Name trading becomes a thriving industry in itself, then I believe we
have done everyone a disservice.

>Similarly, where existing com.au domain name holders of Melbourne IT have 
>difficulties/disagreements with their administrative policies ( such as in the
>anniversary versus common renewal debate) I thought the current framework 
>encouraged/allowed for alternative and competing com.au registration bodies to
>be established. 

The current framework allows for it, the big uproar is over making sure a
second authority exists before domain name holders are forced to renew with
MelbourneIT by the date they have specified.

Cheers

Brett

----
Brett Caird		Chief Executive/Director
brettc§bit.net.au	http://www.bit.net.au/
Brisbane Internet Technology Pty Ltd