Thats a VERY GOOD point.
Here's a scenario for the list..

Imagine if you were or are an ordinary shareholder of a company who was 
successful in the previous generic auction process that was run, paying 
$100K+ for a generic domain..

Continue imagining the business goes belly up.
Imagine the look on the Administrator's face when he goes to sell the 
100K domain name..

LOL

I reckon auDA might be in for a fight..
We all know the actual business name and /or company name wont be sold.
It has tax and creditor liabilities.
It has no appreciable business name or company name goodwill.
The only appreciable asset is the domain name, which has a history of 
being sold at auction.
The asset which can't be sold, but was sold originally at auction, and 
is now not in use, but theoretically could be..

Forgetting the legalities, what about the ethics..
I also would have also thought that auDA has some sort of ethical 
responsibilty to the workers of the hypothetical company that paid 100K 
for a generic from them.
The workers didn't know anything about the process and how a bunch of 
blokes they've never at a place called auDA met and made up some cyber 
rules that are going to deny them their super..

Additionally, please help me understand what happens when auDA denies 
the sale and takes back the domain.

Does auDA get to sell the name again at another future auction, or does 
it just go into the pool and it's FCFS?

Regards.

Mike.


Deus Ex Machina wrote:

> I should add auda has only granted itself the right to realise 
> differential
>
>value for domains. I would have thought that what was ok for the regulator
>to do would be ok for everybody else as well.
>
>apparently not.
>
>Vic
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
>author, further information at the above URL.
>
>
>
>  
>