George Michaelson wrote:

> Folks, the discussion here is all very well, but surely time spent writing
> up and submitting to the names panel is time better spent?

Hi George

This discussion is a way of reaching consensus.  I'm hoping to distill my
arguments into a formal submission before the due date.  Hoping :).

> I have seen three substantive issues raised in this list I think should be
> discussed and raised with the names panel as inputs:
>
> 1) that there should [or should not be] more domains under .AU
>
> 2) that policies in domains under .AU should be relaxed to FCFS [or not]
>
> 3) how should change be introduced? overnight? staged? what are the legal
>    ramifications?

Nicely put.  But there's an inter-relationship which is being explored.

> Vituperation about tax, M-IT, who can spell better, is not useful. Comments
> about cost, competition, legal action in respect of policy change might
> be useful, but might also be more relevant for another forum.

Sorry, George, I don't agree.  You may have not have got my point about cost.
I was arguing that some domain names (eg generic) have a value in excess of
their $140 cost.  If a person secures such a name they have a windfall gain
which might not be in the public interest.  Hence the report talking about
auctions.

Competition is very relevant also.  Spelling probably isn't :).

But thanks for reminding us to stay focussed.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss