>K Heitman & Co wrote:
>> 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. 
>
>It is ICANN that allows auDA to run .au, the Federal Government
>simply endorsed auDA as their choice to run .au.

Ah, but what an endorsement. The Federal Government does assert
ownership of .au, see the Telecommunications Act Part 22, Division 3.
Had auDA not taken steps to become inclusive of all stakeholders and
to have transparent and independent policy development processes, the
endorsement would not have been awarded. The Federal Government's
endorsement of auDA is not unconditional nor irrevocable. 

It's another can of worms whether ICANN is a real owner of the DNS or
just a convenient fiction for the US Government. There is lots of
information on the Net that you could read if you would like to
appear informed on the topic. As a director of auDA, I do not
consider that ICANN endorsement is necessary or sufficient, though as
a matter of daily functionality it works.

>> There have been good points made as to where to draw the line, but
>> unless there is an acknowledgement by list members that a domain
>name
>> is a licence, not property, there will be little communication. As
>
>There have been a number of cases in the US courts where judges have 
>deemed hat domain name licences are to be treated as property. 
>Regardless, this has nothing to do with the issue, people can trade
>both 
>property and licences as they wish in most other environments.

That's wrong, essentially that's the difference between a proprietary
right and a licence. Some licences may have a secondary market, but
in virtually every field the transfer rights are limited.

If something is property, there is a right of disposal. If something
is a licence, there is usually only a right of surrender back to the
licencing authority. Natch there are lots of exceptions, but a useful
analogy around addressing might be the position on the transfer of
Post Office boxes (ok on bona fide sale of business, otherwise
non-transferable). 

>> 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. 
>
>and why is that? was the original decision based on evidence and
>data? 
>No, it was entirely based on the fears and paranoia of a panel mostly
>
>made up of people that feared the world would end if they allowed .au
>to 
>be properly commercialised.

You had to be there, there was a considered analysis of what
cyber-squatting is and what is wrong about it. I'm sorry that you and
Vic don't intuitively know why cyber-squatting is unethical and
rightly prohibited. However, you can read up on the history of .au
and how the policies under criticism came into being. As a current
director, you might also like to read up on how to change a policy.

>> Kimberley Heitman
>> www.kheitman.com
>
>Another person who seems to have trouble using an .au domain. Have
>the 
>overly restrictive .au rules made it hard for you to register an .au 
>domain for yourself or your business?

No, at the time I wanted a domain name the monopoly rents of the
incumbent registry was the problem. I wouldn't have had a problem
under the bad old days, let alone in today's near-optimal environment.

>I notice both the com.au and .id.au version of the above are
>available...

Yup, Chesley told me.

>You espouse the benefits of .au, yet you choose to use the apparently
>
>much inferior .com space. Very interesting indeed.

Not really, I've built the brand and it's not worthwhile starting
again. Lots of us old-timers are in the same position. 

Kimberley Heitman


------------------------------------------------------
               Kimberley James Heitman               
                  www.kheitman.com
------------------------------------------------------