|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Michael Purse
|> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:39 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Regarding cybersquatting
|> 
|> > As I understand it there are no obstructions to moving a 
|> domain name 
|> > to a new holder if it is part of a business sale/transfer. 
|>  It is only 
|> > questionable if the domain name is being sold/transferred 
|> on it's own.  
|> > I don't have any problem with hostnames being sold as part of a 
|> > business sale, just when the hostname is the basis for the sale.
|> 
|> With that logic, you'd object to the sale of 
|> rosesonly.com.au as its domain is its main asset.
|> 
|> A lot of businesses could be sold simply of the basis that 
|> they have an excellent domain name. I don't see an issue with that.

I do, if the only asset a business has is a domain name then it isn't really a
business.  If there is a website and a viable business behind the domain name
then I don't have a problem with the domain name being transferred with the
business.

If the only value is in the domain name then this becomes trading in domain
names and I don't want to see that.  We all went through this on the gTLDs
where domain name prices became inflated and when the dot com bubble burst, so
did the market  Trading in names alone allows too many shonky practices and
results in an unrealistic market where the punters end up getting burnt.  That
is not to say there aren't honest players wanting to get into the secondary
market but I just don't see any real benefits in allowing it.

My opinion may change if it can be shown allowing secondary markets would
benefit the namespace but so far all I've seen is how it would make things
easier for domain name sellers to process transfers and allow those serving
the market to make more profit.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch