K Heitman & Co [kheitman§westnet.com.au] pontificated:

> > you ignore the fact that the only public that should involved in a 
> > private sale of a domain are the 2 parties.
> 
> That's unreal. The Federal Government asserts control of the .au
> domain space, and has appointed auDA to manage the .au namespace on
> behalf of Her Majesty. 

you seem to have a rather peculiar history of event, in my
recolection the government made no such assertion, rather the government
insisted on a self regulation approach. the constitution of auda derives
its power from the corporations act, not from her Majesties or John
Howards blessings or the ACA.

unless I am mistaken neither the registrant nor the registrar agreement mention that 
domains are owned by the government.

in fact the registrant agreement says there is no propriatery interest
specifically and presumably only to prevent secondary markets.

a simple change to the registrant agreement appears to be all that is called for.

regardless my feeling is that a Liberal government isnt overly, whats the right
word, antagonist maybe, towards markets? shall I check the Liberal party
web site or shall we agree here about likely government direction?


> Though some registrars reckon that the current registrant transfer
> policy is too hard for micro-businesses and hard cases, anecdotes
> aren't evidence. The next review panel will need more economic
> analysis and evidence than the Ayn Rand rhetoric so far. 

I am somewhat baffled and perplexed since you seem to the be the EFA
representative, and the EFA is supposed to defend online liberty and freedoms,
yet here you are absolutely reluctant and in fact quite denigrative of
liberties and freedoms perticularly.

since I am a sponsor of EFA perhaps you care to clarify just what it is 
I am sponsoring and why EFA is inactive about pushing the causes of
online liberty and freedom? and just since when has government involvment been
a disinsentive to EFA action?

Vic