Ron

In relation to your 1st post:

Speaking as a lawyer, the issue seems to me that, just because the licence
is temporary, doesn't mean it has no intrinsic value.

Take property in Canberra - it is not freehold - but 99 year leases from the
Government.  This can be regarded as "temporary", but people still pay heaps
for such a block of land.  Likewise other leases (and licenses) of "real
property".  The same applies when you lease a TV from Radio Rentals - a much
shorter term.  

In both cases, you are paying for the use of an "asset", which reverts to
the owner at the end of the licence/lease term.  THese are both tangible
items, but the licence of a trade mark is an example of a temporary right to
use intangible property.

In each case, there is usually a possibility that the licensor/lessor will
not renew your rights to use at the end of the term.

The amount you are willing to pay is therefore determined by such factors
as:
* the entitlement to renewal (presumably very strong with your ACT home)
* the likelihood of it occurring, or of altered terms and conditions;
* the likely condition of the asset at the end of the term, and the
cost/availability/desirability of alternatives;
* etc

In relation to your 2nd post, if auDA is classified as part of the
Government, then the issue could be one of "acquisition of property
otherwise than on just terms" - a breach of the Constitution, and therefore
possibly actionable.  However, this may be addressed in the terms and
conditions on which the domain name licence is granted - and therefore it
may be contractually permitted.  

I'd say it's what's known as "an interesting legal question", which usually
means it would cost you a fortune to litigate, and no lawyer is prepared to
stick their neck out and give a B&W answer. 

Cheers

James Omond


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§businesspark.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2001 13:52
To: 'dns§lists.auda.org.au'
Subject: RE: [DNS] Notional value of a domain name

Chris 

>> snip

My difficulty remains.  Apparently to support the right of auDA to
"confiscate" a domain name, it is deemed to have no intrinsic value.  Yet on
the other hand, to support auDA's right to auction a name to the highest
bidder, it is deemed instead to have a value.

Ron Stark