From: Kirk Fletcher 
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2007 11:50 AM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Feedback on 2007 Names Policy Panel Draft Recommendations

Jo,

In response to issue #3 (secondary market), I support proposal 3b
- that we have a fully open secondary market.  It is a fundamental property right to be able 
to transfer property to a third party, for whatever price someone is willing to pay (and the 
seller is willing to accept).  In addition, an open market ensures that each domain name 
ultimately ends up in the hands of whoever values it the most.

I would also like to stress that, despite the panel suggesting otherwise, that option 3c is 
NOT a compromise model.  You do not liberalise a market by adding an extra layer of 
bureaucracy and red tape.  It seems to me that the language of the panel's draft submission 
(by referring to this as a compromise), was to later justify their choice of this option as 
a "middle ground" should the public feedback be divided between 3a and 3b.  It is nothing of 
the sort.

Furthermore, option 3c would make the transfer process more expensive - potentially putting 
the process out of reach for most of the "legitimate transfer" examples listed at the end of 
the Draft Recommendations document.  It should be noted that my preferred option of 3b (open 
market) will still (presumably) incur a cost of a "registrant transfer" of some sort - but 
in an open and decentralised market, registrars would compete on both service and price - 
providing a better deal to end users. 

I'd also like to point out to ISOC-AU that option 3b still requires the new registrant be 
eligible for the domain under any policy rules that remain.  I mention this, as their 
submission seemed to be somewhat confused on the matter.

Regards,
Kirk Fletcher