[DNS] Secondary Market

[DNS] Secondary Market

From: Sean K. Finn <Sean.Finn§ozservers.com.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:23:58 +1000
So what you are saying is that


A)      you have a legitimate claim to the .com.au version




B)      The current registrant has a legitimate claim to it, but has
acted in bad faith, as although they are eligible, they have done
nothing with it and do not plan to do so anymore?


Sounds clear cut to me.


Ask them to de-register it so that you can then register it, and pay
them for their troubles.



From: dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+sean.finn=ozservers.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of J
and J Miller
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:20 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market


Our company recently paid US$40,000 for a com domain. We would like to
offer the same amount to the registrant of the com.au version, and we
are positive they would accept as they have owned the domain for years
and done nothing with it, but the current policy does not clearly permit
such a transfer.

There are also several other registered com.au domains our business
would love to buy from the current registrants for development. It is
very unfortunate for all concerned that we can't.
The policy needs to change! It's negatively affecting our business by
hampering its growth.

On 7/17/06, Kirk Fletcher <kirk&#167;enetica.com.au> wrote:

"Darryl (Dassa) Lynch"
> Thank you.  I do believe we should discuss all these issues,
> we do need to keep it civil however.

Casting cannibals, communists and crazy capitalists aside 
for a moment, I'd like to try to clarify some of the positions
being put forward.

The facts as they are now, are that if a business or company
owns a domain name, then if the business is sold, the domain
name goes with it.  There seems to be little opposition to
this, even though, as has been pointed out, speculators can
also use this method.

At present, registrants still require a close and substantial
connection to a domain name in order to register it...  if they 
are approached by someone who values the domain more
than they do, should they not be free to profit from it?  Surely
this is win-win... After all, a buyer does not pay more than
what they think an item is worth (so they've hardly been 
"ripped off",) and the original owner clearly profits from the

It seems to me (and you can correct me if I'm wrong,) that
you don't appear to be opposed to domain trading per se -
just that you are opposed to domain speculation.  Is this a
correct assessment?

If this is the case, then I'm curious as to why you are opposed
to speculators in particular.  Where similar assets of variable
value are available, they are a natural side-effect - and seems
as legitimate a business practice as any other... How do you
maintain that a future (possible) registrant has a greater right
to the domain name?

With regards to whether or not a domain name is an asset:
anything which adds value to a business is clearly an asset.
Unlike software licenses (which btw, is also an asset - you
depreciate it on your tax returns,) domain names often 
increase in value over time.

In some cases, this appreciation is because of the good will
generated by the registrant's use of the domain.  In other
cases, it is simply because the registrant had the foresight to 
secure the name of an up-and-coming service, product or idea.
In either case, isn't the registrant entitled to profit from the
sale of the domain?  If not, how can you justify that position?

Your entire opposition to the concept of domain trading seems 
to be that some people miss out on their desired domain name...
well, that goes without saying: multiple parties want a domain,
only one entity can have it.  At least with a secondary market,
domains ultimately end up in the hands of those that value them 
the most... even better: those who relinquish the domain name
get some compensation.  It seems to me to produce more
winners than the present situation.

Finally: Each domain name is unique, this is true - but they are 
hardly limited in number.  To claim them as a non-renewable
resource is disingenuous.

Kirk Fletcher

List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20060717/ee5acdc0/attachment.htm
Received on Mon Jul 17 2006 - 04:23:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC