|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Jon Lawrence
|> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:27 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List; '.au DNS Discussion List'
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
|> 
|> Darryl
|> 
|> The problem with the ticket scalping analogy is that a 
|> ticket can only be used on one occasion.  

True, a problem with any analogy is they are rarely a perfect fit.  We all use
them though to try and describe what we mean in ways others may understand.

|> A domain name however can be used by one company for a 
|> period of time after which they may feel that it is no 
|> longer core to their requirements.  Rather than simply 
|> letting it expire, however, they may choose to hang on to 
|> the name, having built up value in that name in terms of 
|> both brand equity and also web traffic.  Another company 
|> comes along and decides that they would like that name and 
|> approaches the first company with an offer that is accepted.
|>  
|> 
|> Is that not a perfectly legitimate business transaction?  
|> Why should that be proscribed?

Jon, I don't disagree with the idea of a domain name being transferred to
another business.  I'd just like third parties kept out of the loop.  If we
can have processes where businesses can transfer domain names without the
market being exploited I'm all for it.  The problem is I can't see any
solution as yet.  All the schemes I've been able to think up involve a degree
of complexity that would be worse than the current system.  If someone comes
up with a good plan for moving forward which is a reasonable compromise I
think we would all like to see it.  At present the best course appears to be
reviewing the policies and seeing if they can be fine tuned to address some of
the concerns and issues raised.  I doubt any of us will be completely
satisfied with the outcome but it would be progress.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch