>I'd support the easy transferal of domains between TWO ELIGIBLE >entities, but I would INSIST that AuDA itself, and not the registrars, >perform the checks required to ensure that.. This is pretty much the process that Nominet currently runs for .co.uk transfers between UK-registered companies. The same process applies for non-UK registered companies and individuals but in these cases there is no eligibility check (they basically check that the new company is registered and using the correct company name). Nominet charge a ?30 + VAT charge for this service, which involves exchanging paperwork and is therefore pretty cumbersome. The process can take some weeks to complete. >A) The loosing party had a legitimate claim, and is waiving that claim, >B) The domain in question is put to public auction by Auda, with email >notification to all Registrars and authorized AuDA resellers, to give >all and sundry a chance to bid at fair market value, conducted by a >government accredited Auction House or Auctioneer. >C) The Highest bidder gets the domain, and the proceeds get split 50/50 >Auda and loosing registrant, plus a processing fee for wasting AuDA's >time. (Whichever is greater). I don't see that this is a particularly efficient process and if it were adopted, we'd probably end up with auDA having a much larger budget & staff than it currently does and thereby becoming an "entrenched interest" in the industry in it's own right. I would also argue that it also goes beyond auDA's remit (of being a regulator) by turning it into a service provider. We already have plenty of service providers in this industry. I also don't agree that a public auction is required. Why shouldn't two parties be able to agree on a sale of a domain name licence in private as they see fit? There are perfectly legitimate scenarios where that would happen that do not involve the wholesale warehousing and speculation of domain names. Jon >-- Original Message -- >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:29:19 +1000 >From: "Sean K. Finn" <Sean.Finn§ozservers.com.au> >To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > > >On a serious level, trying to look at it from the same side here, does >anyone have any proposals for allowing easy transfer and disposal of >.com.au domain names without inviting the domain name land grab solely >for the purpose of making a buck when someone who wants the name finally >comes along (AKA domain speculation).It is a practise I find offensive. > >Does making the step to allow easy transfer between non related entities >then open the flood gates for the argument to allow domain speculation >in .au? > >It may legitimize a pre existing black market trade in .au domains to >the point of convenience, but will it then encourage a further, greater >black market of domain speculation by making it just that little bit >easier? > >I'd support the easy transferal of domains between TWO ELIGIBLE >entities, but I would INSIST that AuDA itself, and not the registrars, >perform the checks required to ensure that.. > >A) The loosing party had a legitimate claim, and is waiving that claim, >B) The domain in question is put to public auction by Auda, with email >notification to all Registrars and authorized AuDA resellers, to give >all and sundry a chance to bid at fair market value, conducted by a >government accredited Auction House or Auctioneer. >C) The Highest bidder gets the domain, and the proceeds get split 50/50 >Auda and loosing registrant, plus a processing fee for wasting AuDA's >time. (Whichever is greater). > >That should even appease all of the Capitalism nuts on the list. > >> I'd have to agree with that. AuDA have shown by their actions >(generic > > >> name auctions etc) and by their words (the transfers policy I referred >to >> earlier) that in a practical sense at least, a domain name licence is >a >> transferrable asset. As long as the eligibility criteria are met by >the >> new registrant, I can see no public policy gain from restricting the > >trading >> of domain name licences. There is, on the other hand, a demonstrable >> public >> policy gain from freeing up Australian businesses to acquire and >dispose >> of domain name licences as they would any other business asset. Abuse >of >> this process would then be dealt with under the terms of the Trade > >Practices >> Act, as it is for other industries. > >> I think it's also important to make the point that legitimising the > >secondary >> market does not necessarily equal "turning .au into .com". While the >eligibility >> criteria remain in place, the .au domain space will always retain a >degree >> of value for Australian businesses that other spaces never will. > >> Jon > > > >>-- Original Message -- >>From: "Charlie McCormack" <charlie§mccormack.net.au> >>To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns§dotau.org> >>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:19:17 +1000 >>Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >> >> >>> auDA made the >>> decision about selling/auctioning domains. >> >>It could be argued they are selling Intellectual Property they have no >right >>to. >> >>If the amount a domain name holder is charged is an administration fee >and >>not as stated a sale price or auction price, then it would seem that >auDA >>are only an administrator of the DNS (as stated by ICANN) and not a >provider >>(merchant) of the DNS. >> >>So then don't they only administer a records system, which they charge >an >>administration fee, which then means they also have no rights to these >>domain names, so then aren't the restrictions illegal, and could they >be >>infringing on IP laws or other trade laws? >> >>Which then comes back to the question Tony asked. >> >>So, they have the right to delegate authority to a domain name under >the >>administration of the DNS, but do they have the right to restrict the >>resale. >> >>IMO, no they do not have this right of restriction as an administrator, >it >>would seem the only ones that could really apply this restriction is >the >>Australian Government. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dns-bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns- >>> bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Robert >Sandali >>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2006 12:07 PM >>> To: .au DNS Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>> >>> On behalf of the Government ? No, they are not a Government agency >and >>> don't act on behalf of the Government. Unless I am mistaken auDA >made >>the >>> decision about selling/auctioning domains. >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dns-bounces+robert.sandali=intaserve.com§dotau.org >>> [mailto:dns-bounces+robert.sandali=intaserve.com§dotau.org]On Behalf >Of >>> Sean K. Finn >>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2006 11:40 >>> To: .au DNS Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>> >>> >>> Auda has done it on behalf of the Australian Government, have they >not? >>> >>> Same rules as agents should apply. >>> >>> Complain to the source, don't kill the messenger. >>> >>> -Sean. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au§dotau.org >>> [mailto:dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf >Of >>> Robert Sandali >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:56 AM >>> To: .au DNS Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>> >>> Are you asking whether a domain name is an asset, or why can auDA >sell >>> and >>> auction domain names but the rest of the industry cannot ? >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dns-bounces+robert.sandali=intaserve.com§dotau.org >>> [mailto:dns-bounces+robert.sandali=intaserve.com§dotau.org]On Behalf >Of >>> tony§cmon.com.au >>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2006 09:11 >>> To: .au DNS Discussion List >>> Cc: .au DNS Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>> >>> >>> >>> Fact: AuDA has in the past "sold" "Auctioned" and otherwise derived >an >>> amount/s of significate magnitute for .com.au etc tese names are >>> considered by the australian tax office as assets of a business or >>> company. These "licences/assets" assist business organisations in >>> promoting and providing productivity for same. >>> >>> My Simple question to AuDa is on what premise do they restrict the >free >>> commercial trading of that licence/asset. >>> >>> Can Auda provide a valid reason under law as to why they have >>> restrictive >>> mandates in relation to the .au domain space. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> >>For capitalism to work .com.au >>> >>needs to be something that's ownable. >>> >> >>> >>Its not ownable for good reason. >>> > >>> > A domain name may not be "ownable" or an "asset" however a domain >name >>> > licence >>> > most certainly is. As the auDA transfer policy states: >>> > >>> > (http://auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-03/) >>> > <snip> >>> > 3. CIRCUMSTANCES OF TRANSFER >>> > >>> > 3.1 A registrant may transfer their domain name licence to a >proposed >>> new >>> > registrant if: >>> > >>> > a) (i) the registrant sells part or all of their business >operations >>> or >>> > assets to the proposed new registrant, and the Deed of Sale >includes >>> the >>> > transfer of the domain name licence; or >>> > </snip> >>> > >>> > ie - a domain name licence can be included on a deed of sale and is >>> > therefore >>> > an asset of a business. >>> > >>> > Jon >>> > >>> > >>> >>-- Original Message -- >>> >>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:58:31 +1000 >>> >>From: "Sean K. Finn" <Sean.Finn§ozservers.com.au> >>> >>To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >>> >>Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market >>> >>Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> oh god. why is it that some people who claim to have no objection >to >>> >>> capitalism, display a total ignorance of its underlying >philosophy? >>> >> >>> >>> Vic >>> >> >>> >>I'll Keep it short. >>> >>>http://celebratecapitalism.org/bernsteindeclaration/english/index.html >>> >>and >>> >>http://celebratecapitalism.org >>> >>and slightly amusing: >>> >>http://celebratecapitalism.org/graphics/prodosilovecapitalism.jpg >>> >> >>> >>Summary: >>> >>" Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition that each >>> >>individual owns his life. Capitalism is the only social system in >>> which >>> >>individuals are free to pursue their rational self-interest, to own >>> >>property and to profit from their actions. It entrenches individual >>> >>rights, limited Constitutional government, and >>> >>political/intellectual/economic freedom." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>Hi Vic, >>> >> >>> >>You shouldn't beat yourself up so much. For capitalism to work >.com.au >>> >>needs to be something that's ownable. >>> >> >>> >>Its not ownable for good reason. >>> >> >>> >>Move On. >>> >> >>> >>-Sean. >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/Received on Tue Jul 18 2006 - 12:24:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC
