Hi Vic

My argument was carefully worded and very tight.  Your reply doesn't address
any of the issues I raised -- you omitted them from your response entirely.

In fact you've gone off on a wild-goose chase with something that I didn't
even mention.  I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood.

I'll interleave my response leaving your whole text intact.

> Patrick Corliss [patrick§quad.net.au] wrote:
>
>
> >If the policy is being reviewed, the question becomes "Is
> > the present method of allocation (First Come, First Served at a fixed
price)
> > the fairest system that can be devised".
> >
> > It is my opinion that the answer must be "No, it isn't".
>
> and here is the crux of the mistake.  the word "fair" in respect to
distribution
> of a domain does not and should not import the ultimate use of a domain
> in deciding the fairness of the allocation!

Who's talking about *use*?  What mistake?
Leaving out the clarification, the question clearly said:

       "Is the present method of allocation ( . . ) the fairest
        system that can be devised".

*Allocation*.  I said nothing about *use*.  It's a straw man argument.
And I can't see the relevance or why you should even think so.


> the ultimate use misuse or non use of an allocated domain is beyond AUda's
> charter. if you are going to start differentialy charging by use for a name
> then why not start charging company names and business names  differentially
> by useage?


You're kidding, right?   I never said anything about *useage*.


> think about it, you go register a business name and they tell you oh thats a
great
> name we will charge you $10,000 for it because you will detriment society
> by its use. !?!?!?!? how can they possibly predict that?
>
> because someone might derive a benefit from a business name or company name
or
> domain name does not infer that society is any the worse for it. thats
> impoverished closed loop thinking, that somehow everyone else is poorer
> because someone became wealthier. the tides of economic wealth flow back
> into society one way or another.
>
> and specifically the issue of wealth being redistributed is already covered
by the
> government and its called taxes.


The redistribution of wealth occurs in very many ways.  Not all of them are
called *taxes*.   One is called *losing at the casino*.
Another is called *fines and penalties*.  Another *dole payments*.

Apart from gambling, there are government-sanctioned auctions as occurs, for
example, with radio frequencies.   The government is very flexible !!


> the fear of anyone else getting ahead is the narrow minded australian tall
poppy
> syndrome rearing its ugly head.

I said:
Private schooling, private medicine and university education are similar
examples.  Why should some people gain an unfair benefit over others?  The
answer is, of course, that they can afford to pay a premium price for such a
privilege.

That's a question not a judgment.  There's not one shred of criticism of the
rich, there.  No tall poppy either.  I don't understand how you can think so
except for the words *unfair* and *privilege*.  That's just being rhetorical.


>
> it should be very clear to everyone that the entire issue of fairness in
respect
> to allocation is distinct to fairness in respect to use and the later is
outside the
> charter of any body allocating names.
>
> I have no problem with auda ensuring that domains are allocated fairly, but
> I have serious issues with auda or its panels if they consider they should
stick
> their nose into any potential use of a domain when deciding anything.

Really, it's a straw man.  Nobody said they should.  Certainly not me.


>
> > (2)    Given that the current restriction are to be relaxed, what would be
the
> > fairest and most equitable method of allocating the newly-released domain
> > names?
> >
> > Focus on the second question and I think we all might be able to agree.
>
> what is wrong with the present allocation methodology?
> first come, first served, fixed price.

My posting explained it.  You chose to ignore most of it with a rave.

I've tried again in another posting.  I accept you may have misunderstood.
But if you miss the point again, I won't try a third time.


>
> Vic

Regards
Patrick Corliss