Well, I think that domain names have a value in and of themselves - witness
the sale of business.com and many many other names that are sold as names
only (no servives attached). The entire aftermarket exists in gTLD because
names have an inherent value.

Another perspective on the auDA sales of Generics is that they were sold and
promoted as more valuable than regular non-generics and this was based on a
general perception that they had sold for large sums in other markets.

As a regulator with a  task to educate the market, auDA did nothing to
dissuade potential bidders of this notion by explaining bidders should not
draw conclusions from high value generic sales overseas, because there was a
restriction on resale here.

It is an ethical minefield for a regulator to become involved in this way in
the valuation and sale of domains.

Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dassa [mailto:dassa§dhs.org] 
> Sent: Friday, 25 March 2005 10:15
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules
> 
> 
> |> -----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
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ 
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without 
> permission of the 
> author, further information at the above URL.
> 
>