Kim Davies [kim§cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> 
> You talk of empirical data, but on the unrelated issue of allowing
> overseas registrations, Vic trotted out a completely imaginary fact that
> Australia is contrary to "all other major registries". As I noted, the
> world's largest requires local presence. I could have also said 6 of the
> G7 countries require local presence, and so on. He dismisses the fault
> in his entire justification as mere nit picking. You can't decide to
> require empirical data, and at the same time dismiss it when it doesn't
> suit your needs.

it is nit picking. just take out the word "all" if your desire for
accuracy is bothering you. you also ignore the fact that open registries work quite
fine. you ignore the fact that the only public that should involved in a
private sale of a domain are the 2 parties. you ignore the fact that
secondary markets would create more efficient allocation of names and
allow owners to unlock any real values in names. you ignore the fact
that you are tying up cybersquating with secondary markets which are
unrelated.

there are no public issues in having a secondary market. to even suggest we
need to consider "public good" when deciding if two parties be allowed
to exchange a name is digital socialism at its worst. its a proposterous
invasion of privacy an abuse of liberty and freedom. 

either you as a demand board representative start representing the needs of
the vast majority of the au name space ie com.au ie businesses or you step
aside and let someone on the board who will.

Vic