RE: [DNS] thread.119

RE: [DNS] thread.119

From: Dave Hooper <dave§davehooper.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:20:15 +1100
'fairest way'? 'social outcome'?

Are these not .com.au names (IOW - a commercial category)?

Is not the commercial world full of the larger business dominating the
small?

No-one said it was supposed to be fair.

Dave.

       > -----Original Message-----
       > From: Chris Lin [mailto:nanchou&#167;hotmail.com]
       > Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:12 AM
       > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
       > Subject: [DNS] thread.119
       >
       >
       > Hi
       > I am interested in the claims that the auction is the
       > 'fairest way' to
       > dispose of the domain names and that the entity that
       > 'values them the most'
       > will be able to purchase them
       > So we understand what we are talking about here lets
       > develop the scenario of
       > two entities who will be bidding for the domain name
       > ‘widgets.com.au’.
       > Business 1 is a publicly listed company with assets of
       > $35,000,000 and
       > yearly profit of $4,000,000. Widgets are a very small part
       > of their overall
       > business but they do own the business name: ‘australian gidgets,
       > didgets,nidgets, fidgets and widgets service’ which they
       > obtained as a
       > result of taking over a smaller competitor. They have no
       > plans to purchase
       > ‘widgets.com.au’ but the web-development company they use
       > contacts them and
       > tells them it is available at auction. Although they can’t
       > see any use for
       > it in the short-term their web-developer tells them that
       > they can just point
       > it to their company site and if they get it their
       > competitors will not be
       > able to use it. Not wanting to end up with egg on their
       > face if a competitor
       > gets ‘widgets.com.au’ they decide to allocate $10,000 to
       > secure the name at
       > auction.
       > Business 2 is a small family business named ‘Anne and
       > Dave’s Complete
       > Widgets’. Anne and Dave specialise in widgets and pride
       > themselves on having
       > the widest range in Australia. They have a shop front but
       > rely mainly on
       > mail orders for business. Business has been slow for a
       > while and  some time
       > ago they became concerned about how the Internet would eat
       > into their
       > mail-order business. Eighteen months ago they decided to
       > develop a website
       > and contacted a specialist who informed them that
       > ‘widgets.com.au’ was
       > available for purchase and would make an excellent domain
       > name. After giving
       > the developer the go-ahead they received the bad news that
       > after they
       > applied the domain name ‘widgets.com.au’ had been placed
       > on the list of
       > GENERIC names and was no longer available.
       > After that Anne and Dave put their Internet plans on hold
       > and have been
       > tossing around the idea of getting out of the industry.
       > Anne and Dave’s only
       > assets are $250,000 equity in their family home and their
       > business is
       > currently making a yearly profit of $50,000. Now the developer they
       > initially contacted about the web site contacts them and
       > tells them the name
       > ‘widgets.com.au’ is going up for auction. This makes Anne
       > and Dave very
       > excited because this is a chance for them to stay in the
       > industry and build
       > a business for their future. They decide to allocate
       > $5,000 for the purchase
       > of the domain name.
       > Who values it more?
       > Business 1 was not really interested in the name and does
       > not intend to use
       > it but will buy it so a competitor will not be able to use it.
       > Business 2 have previously applied for the name when it
       > was available and
       > see the name as the key to the survival of their business.
       > Business 1 have allocated $10,000, or 0.03% of their total
       > assets and 0.25%
       > of their annual profit on purchasing the name.
       > Business 2 have allocated $5,000 or 2% of their total
       > assets and 10% of
       > their annual profits to purchase the name.
       > What is the best social outcome?
       > Purchase by Business 1 will mean the widget business
       > become more centralised
       > and result in higher prices. Purchase by Business 2 will
       > mean that the
       > people involved can remain with their business and the
       > people of Australia
       > can have a wider choice of widget retailers.
       > What is the best outcome in terms of the development of
       > Internet businesses
       > in Australia?
       > Purchase by Business 1 will mean the name will not be
       > used, purchase by
       > Business 2 means the Internet business will become the
       > focus of their
       > operations and increase the overall number of Internet
       > businesses in
       > Australia.
       > (Purchase by Business 1 also brings substantial benefits
       > to those involved
       > in selecting and managing this style of auction disposal
       > method which I do
       > not intend to discuss here)
       > What is the final decision regarding the fairest way to dispose of
       > ‘widgets.com.au’?
       > Organising the disposal so that Business 1, the company
       > with the deepest
       > pockets, can buy it is seen as the ‘fairest way’ to dispose of
       > ‘widgets.com.au’.
       > What do you think?
       >
       >
       >
       > _________________________________________________________________
       > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:10 UTC