Hello Kim,

> 
> There have been good points made as to where to draw the 
> line, but unless there is an acknowledgement by list members 
> that a domain name is a licence, not property, there will be 
> little communication. 


Acknowledged.  I have been consistent in describing it as a licence.


> As Crown property, the .au domain space 
> is subject to the Federal Government's assertion of ownership 
> of every one of the .au names. 

That is probably stretching things a bit.   I don't think the ICANN
environment actually gives .au as property to Australia, anymore than
.au Domain Administration Limited gives melbourneit.com.au as property
to Melbourne IT.

The current situation is that .au Domain Administration Limited (auDA)
is the registrant for .au.   Effectively auDA is the licence holder of
.au.

.au itself is really effectively a licence to operate the .au domain
name space within the DNS hierarchy.



> 
> There is no right to a secondary market for licences - ask Microsoft.

Agree.  It is determined by the policy of the licence issuer.   I am
merely stating that I would like this policy to be reviewed.


> While it has been argued that there is a secondary market for 
> taxi licences or fishing licences, this varies from State to 
> State at the whim of the Government. It's not immediately 
> obvious why a secondary market is in the interests of the 
> owner of .au - the Federal Government.

Actually the Federal Government only has reserve powers in this area.
Right now it is .au Domain Administration Limited that is managing .au
in accordance with its constitution.  So lets not create another Red
Herring in the form of the Federal Government.



> 
> Other tests always slide towards cyber-squatting, which is 
> why the present policy requires forms and undertakings. If 
> anyone can buy flowers.com.au on spec, there is an 
> economically wasteful middleman fee to pay before the name 
> finds its way back to a genuine business.


But anyone can register flowers.com.au as long as they meet the
eligibility requirements.   This is no requirement to actually be
operating a business selling flowers.  There is a requirement for a
close and substantial connection, or based on a match to a company name,
business name, or trademark.   If your name happens to be Mr Flowers and
you operate a plumbing business under the business name "Flowers
Plumbers" you are eligible for flowers.com.au.

I think the transfer policy should be consistent with the registration
policy.  
If you think that the registration policy is wrong  - then lets review
that separately.

So any "middleman" still needs to meet the requirements of the
registration policy.


> Otherwise, to convert the right of a licence-holder to a 
> property right will require a vesting of .au from the 
> Government to the private sector. 

I haven't asked for a conversion to a property right.  I have simply
asked the policy to be changed to allow registrants to transfer licences
between themselves, subject to the registrar checking that the new
registrant is eligible to hold that domain name licence.   This decision
is entirely within the mandate of .au Domain Administration Limited.  I
do agree with you that this should be subject to the normal policy
development/review process.

For an example of such a policy, see the .travel policies at:
http://www.tralliance.info/Policies.htm , section 7.4.1 states:

"Domain names are transferable from one eligible holder to another. Such
transfers will be effected through a registrar and the transfer will
require that the transferee will provide the same information as
required of a new applicant and such transfer will be subject to the
same authentication procedures and requirements as applied in the
initial registration. "


Regards,
Bruce