|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Kirk Fletcher
|> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:44 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
|> 
|> 
|> "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.

Speculators find the extra effort cumbersome and cuts into their profits so it
limits their activities.

|> 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.

Why should they be able to profit from it?  They have a license to use the
domain name, if they don't want to use it any more then they should just
release it and allow someone who will use it to do so.  In the case of the
domain name going with the business, it is the business being sold which
creates the profit and or should and the domain name is just a pointer to that
business.  The resource of the name space is a national asset which is being
managed for everyone.

|> 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?

Not really, but I'm practical and know there will always be some trading.  I
just believe there isn't any need to allow more trading or speculation where
it isn't really necessary.  I haven't seen any arguments to convince me it
would do the namespace any good to open up the trading.  

|> 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.

People can be classified as an asset for a business but that doesn't mean the
business owns them and can trade in them, although I have to admit some
businesses do try.

|> 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?

Why should they profit from just registering the name, unless it is used and
value added by the use then they don't have any rights to the name and if they
don't intend to use it they should let it go so someone else has the
opportunity to use the name as a pointer to a new service.

|> 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.

No, secondary markets means the names end up with those willing to pay the
most for them, not the ones who desire the names and would use them as
intended.

|> 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.

I've hardly claimed them as such but the truth of the matter is there are
limited numbers of useful domain names.  The fact people can see a profit to
be made with a secondary market supports that assumption.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch