Glen Turner wrote...
> A few people have suggested that tradeability in domain names
> is a Good Thing.
> 
> This is not so.  The benefits of trading a domain name
> accure to the owner and former owner of the domain, but
> the costs fall on the net community as a whole.
> 
> Imagine if these `social costs' could be charged to the
> transactors:
[...list of examples...]


how different is this from a company moving their postal address?
hiring a new general manager? changing the company switch from 
a normal telephone number to a 008- number? chaning their
008- numbe to a 1800- number? having to add a "9" to the 
beginning of their telephone numbers because of some outside source?

etc etc etc.

these sorts of changes (changes in addressing) go on every day without
destorying the fabric of society.  is the Internet DNS so fragile that
it can't cope with a fraction of the amount of change? (no really,
is it?)

[...various mechanisms to deter trading...]

> If a policy of allowing domain name trading is to occur,
> it would be wise to use one of the above mechanisms to limit
> its impact on the network community.

trading is already occuring - and unless the DNS policy reaches 
business managers it will continue to occur and more frequently.
in a capitalist economy, i don't think many business managers 
will understand that the domain name isn't as tradeable as the
rest of the company. having the network manager say "You can't do
that. It's not done." is also wearing a bit thin with these people.

although the number of computer-literate people in business is 
increasing, so is the number of people who expect the 'net to 
work like Real Life. 


regards

p

(my personal opinions, not my employer's, etc)
-- 
Peter Lees  (peter§next.com.au)   -   Technical Manager,   Next Online
tel: +61 2 9310 1433 *  fax: +61 2 9310 1315  * http://www.next.com.au

"You can have a day off when you're dead, Baldrick, and not before..."