Dassa [dassa§dhs.org] wrote:
> |> You seem to be assuming that there is some unique "rightful owner" for
> |> each domain name.   
> 
> No I'm saying that if there is a hostname being held and not used or intended
> to be used as designed but there is another entity which wants to use the
> hostname correctly, then the second enitity is the right person to have the
> hostname.

this is what audrp does. meanwhile its a up to the market to determine
who is the best person to hold a name. just because a name is not
currently being used doesnt mean anything.

I think you need some economic 101 lessons, you also need to brush up on
why markets work better then central planning. this discussion persists
do your to lack of understanding if why modern society prospers.


> If there were more than one entity who wanted to use the hostname correctly
> then the best way would be to have a random draw, as that would add
> administrative overhead it is easier to allow a first come first serve system
> to operate.

there is not such thing as a correct use of a name. there are just some
arbitrary eligibility criteria.

> |> A secondary market is assuming that there are multiple 
> |> "rightful owners"
> |> of a domain name, and that these rightful owners should be 
> |> able to trade amongst themselves, in the same way as other 
> |> similar markets.
> 
> I'd rather see a random draw, having a market introduces questionable
> activities.

too ridiculous for words.


> I don't have any issues with making transfers easier between eligible
> entities.  I do have concerns over allowing a full secondary market to come
> into play.

put your concerns to rest they are unjustified.

Vic