Can't imagine them getting away with that one. They don't provide a handling or postage service, so I can't see how charging a commission on it would be legal in this country.

Maybe, maybe not, but my concern lies with the slow but sure unification of the sites - more recently extended to the visual as well as, wherever they can, policy and (occasionally) functionality ...or lack thereof. (eg cart, variant listing format, categories).

So, what if all these changes - the mixing in of international listings, the gradual implementation of US policy including things like TRS requirements, the international selling agreement, etc etc is to slowly bring about one, universal site and not have it be such a shock to the system?

Their latest ad campaign focusses on being able to buy brand new items worldwide. 

If you currently list on the US site, you're liable for all the US fees, what's legal in Oz doesn't come into it. 

Other options to fee restructuring posed by the survey:

Fee discounts based on sales volume.

Selected categories that (supposedly) have higher profit margins being charged more than categories that don't. 

They reasoned that charging fees on P&H would "level the playing field for sellers that have free postage" due to "sellers that undercut their competitors then make up for it with higher postage". I refute that, if on no other basis than sellers who list as free post are supposed to get a boost in Best Match, so why do they need the playing field to be levelled?