K Heitman & Co wrote:

> It's another can of worms whether ICANN is a real owner of the DNS or
> just a convenient fiction for the US Government. There is lots of

I am fully aware of the various opinions in this regard, but the simple 
fact is that no country has actually done anything about it, like it or 
not ICANN (and therefore the US DoC) controls the DNS.


>>Regardless, this has nothing to do with the issue, people can trade
>>both 
>>property and licences as they wish in most other environments.
> 
> 
> That's wrong, essentially that's the difference between a proprietary
> right and a licence. Some licences may have a secondary market, but
> in virtually every field the transfer rights are limited.

Are you purposely ignoring the many example Bruce and others have given 
you of situations where licences are freely and legally traded or are 
you simply not bothering to read anything contrary to your opinions?


> You had to be there, there was a considered analysis of what
> cyber-squatting is and what is wrong about it. I'm sorry that you and
> Vic don't intuitively know why cyber-squatting is unethical and

That is clearly your opinion, and as I have indicated many times, it is 
not shared by as many people as you think. The point is that .au 
policies should not be about ethics but about market forces, it is far 
too difficult to impose a balanced ethical policy when you have only 20 
or 30 individuals taking part in such discussions, while there are over 
500,000 actual users.


> rightly prohibited. However, you can read up on the history of .au
> and how the policies under criticism came into being. As a current
> director, you might also like to read up on how to change a policy.

What makes you think I don't already know exactly what the process is 
and was?

Bennett.