The problem with your analogy is that in the case of physical real estate, there is an owner of the property. With domains, there is no owner. The registry is not the owner of the domain, and thus can't sell it. In the real world, the property owner makes an investment in that property in time, money and work. That's the job of the leasee of a domain name, not the registry, so the leasee has the right to sell it, or rent space (via advertising or whatever).
Dave On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Kris Benson wrote: > Kris Benson wrote: > > > > Why do we see a problem with domains? Probably because we're looking at > > them as an object that we *buy*. The registrant is not an owner, but a > > lessee. When you register a domain, you essentially acquire a lease on > > some Internet "real estate" for a fixed period of time, with the > > right-of-first-refusal when renewal time rolls around. Renewal time rolls > > around and your building manager (registrar) comes by to collect the next > > year's lease payment. You say "naw, not this year" and he goes away. It > > is within his right to resell that space to someone else, providing the > > property owner (registry/ICANN/Internet-at-large) still gets paid the > > rental fee. > > To extend this analogy further, we can look at it this traditional > practice (which we must be thankful doesn't occur in the domain world): > > A lease is coming up for renewal. They've been good tenants, making their > payments on time and have fulfilled every part of the lease contract for > the last two years. The property manager comes along and says "the > tenants next door really want to expand into here... so, we're going to be > changing the lease rate for you from $12/ft2 to $20/ft2. If you want to > pay that, great. If not, then we won't be renegotiating this lease." > There is *nothing* the tenant can do about this -- they are at the mercy > of the landlord/property manager. > <snipped>
