Kim Davies wrote:
> What are the community benefits from encouraging a secondary market
> (which seems like a euphemism for encouraging cybersquatting)?

The lifting of the current prohibition on transfer of domain names by auDA
has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the community.  (Such
action may not be sufficient to ensure the development of an orderly, open
and competitive/efficient secondary market in .au domain name licences.)

As a general statement, the elimination of anti-competitive regulation can
deliver significant community benefits including, but not limited to:

- increased consumer choice

- lower prices for consumers in the primary market

- innovation

- new business opportunities

- a reduction in 'red tape'

- a more economically efficient allocation of resources, including in
upstream and downstream markets.

Cybersquatting, warehousing, hoarding may be effectively dealt with by auDA
regulation and/or Commonwealth legislation.  I see it as a separate issue,
as others have noted.

A critical question: Is the prohibition on transfer of domain names between
registrants anti-competitive, but in the public interest under the Trade
Practices Act.  I'm not aware that auDA has justified this regulatory
intervention in terms of net public benefits.


Ian Johnston


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 23 September 2005 5:36 PM
> To: Ian Johnston
> Cc: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Time for the rules to change regarding transferring
> domainname licences
>
>
> Quoting Ian Johnston on Friday September 23, 2005:
> |
> | I agree that it is time to review this policy.
> | - encourage, or at least not discourage, the development of an orderly,
> | open and competitive secondary market in .com.au domain name licences.
>
> What are the community benefits from encouraging a secondary market
> (which seems like a euphemism for encouraging cybersquatting)?
>
> kim