For those interested in the branch form from the taxman, it is form
reference NAT3035-5.2000

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/17360.htm




> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-
> bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Charlie McCormack
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 July 2006 8:36 PM
> To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> 
> > Speculators find the extra effort cumbersome and cuts into their profits
> > so it
> > limits their activities.
> 
> Actually it doesn't, they are just passed onto the new owner.
> 
> It seems to be a consensus that selling the domain name can only be done
> when selling the business, not true.
> 
> auDA does recognise that part of a business can be sold, meaning you can
> sell off a product or service to another party.
> 
> As an ABN holder you can register many branches for free, this means you
> can
> have more than one trading name under the same ABN.
> 
> So it cost $90-110 to register your main business name, and then nothing
> for
> each other trading name you want.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dns-bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-
> > bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Darryl (Dassa)
> > Lynch
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 July 2006 7:57 PM
> > To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> >
> >
> > |> -----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
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/