>K Heitman & Co wrote:
>> 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. 
>
>Maybe you should rethink the above statement. Looking at the public 
>minutes of the auDA board meeting from 12/08/2002, I found something 
>very interesting:
>
>--------------------------
>* Transfer of domain name licences between registrants
>PD declared his interest in relation to transfers in case of 
>liquidation. The board noted correspondence from Davies Collison
>Cave, 
>pointing out that the Interim Transfers Policy does not permit a 
>transfer where a dispute is settled prior to a decision being handed 
>down by the relevant authority. The board discussed the implications
>of 
>allowing transfers pursuant to private settlement between the
>parties. 
>There was a concern that this might facilitate a secondary market in 
>domain names.
>
>Action: Sub-committee of KH, MM, DK, JR and JL to consider the policy
>
>principles of transfers, and draft recommendations for consideration
>by 
>the board.
>--------------------------
>
>So, not only was there no formal panel discussion of this specific 
>matter, but there was no public consultation either. The issue was 
>conveniently decided by the auDA board of the time and more
>specifically 
>by a sub-commitee of which you were a part of.
>
>
>Bennett.
>
>refs
>http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-17062002/
>http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-12082002/
>http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-14102002/

Yes, it's happened twice that the transfer policy has been changed on
the basis of submissions from the public. I told you this, but you
were resisting information at the time.

If I recall correctly, the subcommittee determined that the requested
change (to allow settled cybersquatting disputes to have the same
result as a URDP or court order) was incidental to the name policy
and wouldn't go against the principles the naming policy panel
determined. 

Doesn't help you become a cyber^H^H^H^H^Hdomain name speculator
without a panel, sorry.



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