> Sean wrote:
> > I'm all for simple registrant transfers, absolutely, but that's already
> in
> > existance.
> 
> No it isn't, the process is excessively complicated, for both registrants
> and registrars. Glad to see you base your arguements on baseless fears and
> paranoia instead of actual facts, and thanks for proving my point about
> how
> little people like you understand the reality of the .au space.
> 


So you mean you can factually prove the consequent, being, that by allowing
cybersquatting that it will not deny legitimate use of a domain?

What you really mean is that you want to get extra value out of .au by not
having to check the close and substantial connections to the domains you
already register.

Lets see, fill out some forms, pay the fee, existing registrant agrees to
transfer control, new registrant signs up for new domain.

Both existing and final registrant should have a legitimate claim to the
domain.

How much simpler would you like it to be? Do you want to introduce a step
that deny's a legitmate claim to the domain name by a twit trying to cash in



Tell me the following aren't offshoot's:

1) Extra cash for the registrars (Not a bad thing)
2) Monetary savings by registrars not having to validate claims as they do
now. (Whats that, some don't?) (Still, not a bad thing)
3) less availability for people wishing to trade under a semi-decent name.

Yes, domain trade happens now on the sly, but it takes serious effort.
Allowing open trade would see this incrase, maybe dramatically, but over
time you would see businesses based soley around domain trade, effectively
inflating the price without adding any value.

At an individual level it probably wouldn't have too much of an effect, 

But at a whole-of-economy level it would create some small yet measurable
slowdown of Australias online economy by denying legitimate use of desirable
names to those without a fat naming budget.

This isn't a baseless fear, it's an obvious cause-effect of allowing .com.au
to be sold as a thing rather than to be registered as a thing to use.

> 
> > What im strongly against is the ability for an entity to register a
> domain
> > name in the first place of which it has no legitimate use claim.
> 
> Well, the current rules already allow pretty much anything to be
> registered,
> so you've missed to boat on that arguement as well.
> 
> 
> > But Vic, what you are really trying to tell us is that you want to make
> more
> > money, right?
> 
> How dare registrars even think of making money, you'd better arrange some
> public floggings, the world will end if this making money concept ever
> takes
> off.

Making moneys fine, my point by the above line was to point out that it was
the primary motive for this discussion, not through any genuine community
interest, but out of self interest.