>  I don't call having to pay $40,000 for a domain name as was mentioned on
the list, a reasonable price.
Dassa, well to us it is a bargain. Of course we don't have to pay that much.
We choose to because it would be a good investment.
I don't intend to be rude, but you obviously don't understand that some
names have an "inherent" value. Here is a good article that "considers the
valuation and pricing of domain names."
http://www.caslon.com.au/domainsprofile6.htm

The sooner the namespace opens up the better it will be for everyone. Our
company would not want to invest in developing the namespace if the market
was not mature. 500,000 .au domains registered! The Policy has served well
in past but now it is too restrictive.

On 7/19/06, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch <dassa&#167;dhs.org> wrote:
>
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org
> |> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
> |> Jon Lawrence
> |> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:42 PM
> |> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> |> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> |>
> |> Darryl
> |>
> |> You may not like the idea of people making money from
> |> speculating on the value of domain names.  I have to admit
> |> that I don't particularly like it either, however I do
> |> recognise that it is a perfectly normal consequence of
> |> having a free market.
>
> Jon
>
> It isn't so much I don't like the idea of people making money from domain
> names, it is more I want to see the .au domain names available to the
> majority
> of people at a reasonable price.  I don't call having to pay $40,000 for a
> domain name as was mentioned on the list, a reasonable price.  This is
> what
> speculation does, it drives the prices up to unrealistic levels.  My
> objection
> to a secondary market is that I fear third parties would see it as a means
> to
> put themselves into the mix and grab a percentage which will drive prices
> up
> and further restrict the uptake of domain names by businesses.  The market
> here in Australia hasn't matured enough in my opinion to make having a
> secondary market desirable.  With an increase in awareness and more
> businesses
> having the opportunity/knowledge to use the namespace there will
> eventually be
> a good reason to have a secondary market without what I see as undesirable
> elements intruding.
>
>
> |> There is a great deal of speculation within the share
> |> market, which has all sorts of interesting and unintended
> |> consequences, however I don't hear anyone calling for the
> |> trading of shares to be regulated so that speculation is
> |> proscribed.  The reason for this is that the cost of that
> |> regulation (significantly higher cost of raising capital
> |> etc) would massively outweigh the benefit (less people
> |> getting rich with little effort etc) that removing
> |> speculation from the market would result in.
>
> To be honest I fail to see the value of the comparison.
>
> |> Proscribing the trading of .au domain names may reduce the
> |> amount of speculation in the market, however it also
> |> prevents legitimate business transactions from occuring in
> |> an efficient manner.
>
> I don't see the policy as restricting legitimate transactions.  As has
> been
> pointed out domain name transfers are possible by following the license
> and
> policy rules.  Some may consider it inefficient but it does do what is
> intended and unless a substitute can be designed which will satisfy all
> requirements, it is the best we have.  I certainly don't have all the
> answers
> and a lot of questions but it seems most others are in the same
> position.  It
> isn't good that there are so many within the industry who are dissatisfied
> and
> it is good for us all to discuss the possibilities and try develop a path
> forward that will bring about more harmony and agreement.
>
> |> Here's a real world example:
> |>
> |> I used to work for a company that decided to create a new
> |> brand in order to launch a service that had previously only
> |> been offered within australia, on a global basis.  That
> |> brand was kinda long so was normally referred to by it's
> |> four-letter acronym.  The .com version of that four letter
> |> acronym was registered by another company.  After some
> |> negotiation, that other company decided to sell that domain
> |> name to my company and to rebrand their service.
> |>  For that company, the amount of money we offered greatly
> |> outweighed the cost of rebranding.  For us, the cost of
> |> buying the domain name was greatly outweighed by the benefit
> |> of being able to trade with the appropriate domain name for
> |> our market.  There was no sale of any business or transfer
> |> of any other asset, other than the domain name.
> |>
> |> This is exactly the sort of totally legitimate transaction
> |> that is currently being prevented under the current rules.
>
> I wish I could wave a wand and solve the whole issue but I'm afraid there
> will
> never be a magic formula where everyone will be happy.  The best we can
> hope
> for is a compromise.  At the moment I'd rather see a limited number of
> businesses have the above issue than to see a large number of businesses
> not
> able to get a domain name relevant to their business because they can't
> afford
> to pay the inflated prices that may be demanded with a totally free market
> at
> the moment.  Perhaps we can explore ways to make such issues easier to
> manage
> without making the whole market free and open?  To be honest I'd have to
> go
> and refresh my memory on the policies and rules, I'm not totally clear the
> above isn't possible within the .au namespace.
>
> |> Whatever you think about speculation, the current rules are
> |> not effective in proscribing it (as you admit below), and
> |> result in totally legitimate business transactions being
> |> hindered and/or prevented.
>
> Perhaps but it does hinder speculation which gives the .au namespace a
> chance
> to develop more before it gets out of hand.  If you or anyone, myself
> included
> can come up with a system which satisfies all requirements, I'd be very
> happy
> to promote it.
>
> |> I'd also like to suggest that the less policies auDA has to
> |> police, the more time & resources they will have to police them.
>
> True but just removing policies isn't always the best way to
> go.  Improvement
> and consolidation is often much preferred.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20060720/3dfc71ff/attachment-0001.htm