On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Deus Ex Machina wrote:

 > Kim Davies [kim§cynosure.com.au] wrote:
 > > It's all about finding a balance. You destroy value and opportunity in
 > > other ways if you make .au a completely free market.
 > >The domain space is > a finite resource that needs to last, for all intents and purposes, in
 > > perpetuity - without overly penalising people based on how late or early
 > > they entered the so-called "market". Pure capitalism favours driving
 > > resource exhaustion. Finding a perfect balance is a tough ask.

Indeed, especially when the interests of the overwhelming majority of
this 'market' (domain name registrants) are being supported by so few,
whereas the interests of the tiny minority (registry, registrars and
resellers) are pretty well all we hear about on this list anymore. 
 
 > again that simply not the case. pure capitalism will redirect resources
 > to the most efficient producers and uses the pricing mechanism to determine
 > allocation of scare resources. ie the most efficient producers will make most of the money
 > which entitles them to buy the best assets.

Well Vic, that's the neo-Darwinian economic rationalist dogma alright. 
So-called 'pure' capitalism dignifies and supports plutocracy - rule of
the wealthy - and the increasing Americanisation of Australian and other
client states' industries is, for now, still heading in that direction,
and still accepting, as Kim said, resources depletion in every sphere.

Cosy duopolies wind up controlling nearly all markets ..Woolies / Coles,
Unilever / Colgate, crushing all the smaller players .. and these'd all
long since have become monopolies but for some remaining anti-monopoly
regulation.  Big banks are only 'four' by dint of regulation, or there'd
be just two - or one if govt. policy allowed. Not to mention Telstra .. 

 > I cant see any resource exhaustion in any name space. if a name space
 > becomes "full" whatever that means you open up a new one. names for all
 > intents and puposes are an infinite virtual resource.

As Kim points out, sure you can make up 30-40 character monstrosities; 
you could make it just like the TLD awfulness in every way, especially
if you support a clone of that system, with nothing left distinctive.

And if your tiny wee minority persuades AuDA to permit completely open
slather, click-to-buy domain names as you and Larry have been urging,
then you really will have a licence to print more money - not that I can
blame you for wishing to, given your stated philosophy, but protestation
that any such push is 'in the interest of consumers' is just a bit rich.

If the number of domain names in a given 2ld were to double, and your
share of the market were to remain constant, then your marginal extra
cost of storing and servicing twice as large a database and (perhaps)
needing twice as much server time and traffic would be relatively very
close to zero compared to such a doubling of revenue, would it not?

And then without all that pesky checking of eligibility - whoop de do!

 > armchair enthusiasts dont cause problems because they are enthusiastic
 > its more they are armchair politicians and philosophers, pontificating
 > about things they have superficial understanding of.

Again, it's easy to see why you'd only want those involved at registry,
registrar and (on their coat tails) reseller levels from determining the
.au DNS policies and practices; after all, it worked for Melbourne IT :) 

This list used to involve a good deal more than just positioned players
asking 'can I have some more?'.  Not all registrars have much technical
nous, yet technical discussions regarding the actual efficient operation
of the DNS itself, while not yet taboo, are almost off-topic these days.

I'm sure you'll give my post as much weighting as our relative assets,
and seek for AuDA to do the same.  No surprises, and nothing personal. 

Cheers, Ian