|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Larry Bloch [mailto:larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au]
|> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 1:29 AM
|> To: dns§dotau.org
|> Subject: RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules
|>
|> I think the point is more that auDA asserted that the
|> hypothetical name in question was worth 100k when auDA sold
|> it (they established the competitive bidding system), yet
|> actively disallow the buyer to realise that value by way of transfer.
|>
|> It may be that these are the rules auDA has established and
|> we all have to live by, but that doesn't make them morally
|> or ethically defensible.
|>
|> It's a little odd sitting at either end of the table and on
|> the one hand accepting a big stack of cash for a name and
|> then by way of being a regulator restricting ground rules
|> that would allow the buyer to realise (some of?) that value.
|>
|> Personally, I think auDA should never be in the position of
|> doing anything more that charging their set domain name tax
|> all valuation issues wrt domain names should be resolved by
|> the market and its forces. Crossing that line compromises
|> its impartiality.
|>
|> Larry

Perhaps it is more a question of where the value lies.  Not in the domain
name itself which is only a string of words but in the services the name
represents and the potential of building business behind the name.  Once the
services stop being provided the domain name looses all value until such
time as other services are built up behind it.

The domain name market has put inflated value on hostnames and it is to curb
this inflation that regulation is used.

If anyone pays 100k for a hostname they really want to look at how they can
realise that expense by the use of the name and not expecting the name
itself to hold the value or make a return itself.

Subtle difference but it is there.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch