Hi Vic

You wote:

> Mr Ipsen I find your attitude offensive, why dont you simply answer the
> questions I posed to you rather then stiffle debate?

To be fair, you've also used some strong language in this topic.  The problem
is that you are both arguing at cross-purposes and from different
perspectices.  I tried to cut across that mix-up in my earlier posting.

You have said there should be "open slather" with a whole load of new 2LDs
issued.  That's two different points joined together in the same argument.

Let's agree that there should be a whole load of new 2LDs.  Why not?  Does
that, in and of itself, necessarily mean that there should be "open slather"
in the allocation of domain names?

I can visualise one without the other.  I'm sure you can too.

As I understand it, the Names Panel is looking at the existing policies and
asking whether they should be relaxed.  Most people I've spoken too happen to
think they should.  But you cannot honestly say that restricted domain names
don't have *value*.  Which means there is a question of equitable allocation.

If lots of people want something in a Grace Brothers sale, do you really think
you should just open the doors and have a stampede?  With people screaming,
crying and fighting over a new suit for $10?   That's the *landrush* argument.

It's not being *socialist* -- it's the plain old Aussie sense of fair play.

I personally would pay $5,000 each for three restricted domain names that I
want to use.  I'd even borrow the money if I had to.  And I am certain that
others would be prepared to pay much more at an auction.  It's really not an
unrealistic scenario and there's plenty of precedent for having auctions.

Isn't even slightly possible that this money could be used in some way to help
finance a better internet?  Or do I just pay $140 each and think myself lucky?

Of course, your two points are related in that a whole load of new 2LDs would
certainly lower the value of the domain names I want to register.  Which is an
 interesting balance of supply and demand.  But I'd still be of the opinion
that, at least for a time, their value would be significantly greater than
$140 each.

The trouble is that new 2LDs are a separate item on the agenda of the Names
Policy Panel report.  So it may be more effective to separate the two issues.

What do you think?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss