As the policy does not permit one to straight out buy already registered
com.au domains from the current registrants we've been advised that AuDA can
and will cancel domains involved in such transactions. We also feel it's too
risky to pay someone to de-register their domain because of the chance
someone else could register it before us.
Hopefully by years end AuDA will revise the policy to allow for such
transactions.


On 7/17/06, Sean K. Finn <Sean.Finn&#167;ozservers.com.au> wrote:

>  So what you are saying is that
>
>
>
> A)      you have a legitimate claim to the .com.au version
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> B)      The current registrant has a legitimate claim to it, but has acted
> in bad faith, as although they are eligible, they have done nothing with it
> and do not plan to do so anymore?
>
>
>
> Sounds clear cut to me.
>
>
>
> Ask them to de-register it so that you can then register it, and pay them
> for their troubles.
>
> -Sean.
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au&#167;dotau.org [mailto:
> dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au&#167;dotau.org] *On Behalf Of *J and J
> Miller
> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2006 2:20 PM
>
> *To:* .au DNS Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
>
>
>
> Our company recently paid US$40,000 for a com domain. We would like to
> offer the same amount to the registrant of the com.au version, and we are
> positive they would accept as they have owned the domain for years and done
> nothing with it, but the current policy does not clearly permit such a
> transfer.
>
> There are also several other registered com.au domains our business would
> love to buy from the current registrants for development. It is very
> unfortunate for all concerned that we can't.
> The policy needs to change! It's negatively affecting our business by
> hampering its growth.
>
> On 7/17/06, *Kirk Fletcher* <kirk&#167;enetica.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> "Darryl (Dassa) Lynch"
> >
> > Thank you.  I do believe we should discuss all these issues,
> > we do need to keep it civil however.
>
> Casting cannibals, communists and crazy capitalists aside
> for a moment, I'd like to try to clarify some of the positions
> being put forward.
>
> The facts as they are now, are that if a business or company
> owns a domain name, then if the business is sold, the domain
> name goes with it.  There seems to be little opposition to
> this, even though, as has been pointed out, speculators can
> also use this method.
>
> At present, registrants still require a close and substantial
> connection to a domain name in order to register it...  if they
> are approached by someone who values the domain more
> than they do, should they not be free to profit from it?  Surely
> this is win-win... After all, a buyer does not pay more than
> what they think an item is worth (so they've hardly been
> "ripped off",) and the original owner clearly profits from the
> transaction.
>
> It seems to me (and you can correct me if I'm wrong,) that
> you don't appear to be opposed to domain trading per se -
> just that you are opposed to domain speculation.  Is this a
> correct assessment?
>
> If this is the case, then I'm curious as to why you are opposed
> to speculators in particular.  Where similar assets of variable
> value are available, they are a natural side-effect - and seems
> as legitimate a business practice as any other... How do you
> maintain that a future (possible) registrant has a greater right
> to the domain name?
>
> With regards to whether or not a domain name is an asset:
> anything which adds value to a business is clearly an asset.
> Unlike software licenses (which btw, is also an asset - you
> depreciate it on your tax returns,) domain names often
> increase in value over time.
>
> In some cases, this appreciation is because of the good will
> generated by the registrant's use of the domain.  In other
> cases, it is simply because the registrant had the foresight to
> secure the name of an up-and-coming service, product or idea.
> In either case, isn't the registrant entitled to profit from the
> sale of the domain?  If not, how can you justify that position?
>
> Your entire opposition to the concept of domain trading seems
> to be that some people miss out on their desired domain name...
> well, that goes without saying: multiple parties want a domain,
> only one entity can have it.  At least with a secondary market,
> domains ultimately end up in the hands of those that value them
> the most... even better: those who relinquish the domain name
> get some compensation.  It seems to me to produce more
> winners than the present situation.
>
> Finally: Each domain name is unique, this is true - but they are
> hardly limited in number.  To claim them as a non-renewable
> resource is disingenuous.
>
> Regards,
> Kirk Fletcher
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20060717/1afaffea/attachment.htm