>> 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?

Bennett, that is a non sequitur. That people in some situations are
allowed to trade some licences does not make licences a proprietary
right. I am aware, of course, that some licensing schemes permit
transfers of licences under conditions which vary from licence to
licence and from State to State. 

Actually, I suspect that once one delves into the fine print, the
ones Bruce mentioned do have certain conditions on who may be a
transferee. The present auDA transfer-between-registrants policy
allows transfers in certain defined situations so it is also an
example of "some rights" to transfer.

So there are two kinds of licences - non-transferable, or
transferable under conditions. If you can find an example of a
licence which is transferable without reference to the issuing
authority, that would be a third type. 

>> 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. 

Got any stats? It's an easy game to claim the support of the silent
majority, but if you are right there should be data to support your
assertion. The onus is on those wishing to legalise cybersquatting to
establish that there is public support - all the evidence I've seen
over many years demonstrates the opposite.

However, if you're right there should be no problem persuading a
review panel to open up the namespace to all the scams.

> 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.

"Market forces" is just another ethical argument, except it is rooted
in the worship of Mammon rather than God. 

>> 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.

Pardon me, I assumed if you knew you would have told your partner Vic
so he didn't make a fool of himself in public. I'm still not
convinced you understand why auDA is bound to publicly consult on
changes to naming policy or transfer rights, or you would be
directing your energies in that direction. 

Kimberley Heitman
------------------------------------------------------
               Kimberley James Heitman               
                  www.kheitman.com
------------------------------------------------------