Ron Ipsen [ron§comu.net.au] wrote:
> To issue or not to issue the majority of the remaining geographic names, To 
> whom should we allocate this "unfair advantage" and under what 
> circumstances is still the question that must be answered.

nobody has offered any proof whatsoever that these name constitute
an "unfair advantage" or why anyone should be charged with making
sure that these domains remain unused or that nobody be given these
"unfair domains". these are commercial domains, there is nothing fair
about business. quite simply get out of the way.

> In the case we are discussing "names with fences" the obverse is true.
> 
>   "What belongs to nobody - belongs to everybody"

excelent so nobody can use them. beautifull. lets tidy up the
rest of domain names spaces to make sure nobody pollutes them by
actually making any use of them. lets just go back to ip addressses so the
sanctity and purity of the name space is preserved for the national good
and remains untainted for future generations to admire.


> Its not up to me to decide to licence something that belongs to everybody 
> to just one individual or entity.

there is your first mistake. the .au name space do not belong to the australian
public, the name space belongs to an overseas body which seems to for the
time being to have benevolently allowed us to use them.

>   I am just one of many who are trying to find a workable solution to 
> equity in this issue.

you have absolutely no right whatsoever to adjudicate equity in the value of
a domain name. this "problem" is an artifact of well meaning people imposing
personal views in the name of the greater good. I think thats pretty
much the kind of human tragedy that has led us to world wars.

your problem is nonexistant. release the names. let the market work it out for itself
if there is any value in them.

Vic