Quoting Deus Ex Machina on Thursday March 24, 2005:
| 
| > It depends who your customers are ?
| > I thought the policy was there to protect the consumer.
| 
| from having names they want?

Alright, I'll bite.

My response is "exactly".

I believe in having a policy that requires some material connection
between the registered name and the name of the registrant. Reading
between the lines of your one line answers I would guess you disagree,
but this is a resource preservation method that indeed makes it more
likely people can have the names they want.

Let's contrast with Germany. Germany has a pure FCFS system, with a low
price point. The price point is so low in fact (something less than
$10 per year in Australian currency) that ISPs throw them around like
confetti. I myself have about five .de domains, not because I want, or
use, any of them - but they are just handed out for free with products I
get from my ISP.

And what is the end result? The .de zone contains I think something of
the magnitude of 8-9 million domain names with practically every
useful domain name gone. If you have a company name, the odds of getting
something remotely matching that name in the zone is slim. The odds of
getting a new name that is mnemonically attractive is almost zero. The
number of new domains that are 30+ character monstrosities is high.

I want to have a domain space where it is relatively easy to get the
domain you want - and that is not just today, but in 10 years time.
Adopting highly liberal policies will surely give people a kick now, but
what will be the long-term impact? People registering domains they never
use, and hold on to forever because the cost is nominal.

That is one primary reason why I believe a name-connection policy is
useful. I believe that whilst the prices in .au are too high, I don't
think the long term best interests of the market are served if they end
up in the bargain basement range (which is possible).

Noting loopholes and therefore simply saying "It's too hard, so don't
bother" is a lame excuse. To make a far-reaching analogy, there are
many things under law that are illegal but impossible to 100% police -
that doesn't mean they should be made legal. Then again, I guess the
police would probably advocate getting rid of all the laws if they were
capitalists who were simply in it for the profit - after all, it's less
work to do and more money to be made.

kim
--
http://www.kim.id.au/