Re: DNS: Message From KO/Office

Re: DNS: Message From KO/Office

From: Gary Oliver <gary.oliver§ooo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:54:22 +1100
mark.hughes&#167;ccamatil.com wrote:
> 
> DISCLAIMER] I'm not a lawyer, and anyone should check with a real
> legal eagle before acting on any of the following:
> 
> As Melbourne IT is offering a commercial service for registering
> .com.au domain names, I believe they would be subject to the Trade
> Practices Act.  The prime objective of the Trade Practices Act is to
> foster and promote competitive markets by declaring certain types of
> anti-competitive business conduct to be illegal.
> 
> There are three principal Parts to the Act:
> 
> Part IV, entitled Restrictive Trade Practices, specifies conduct
> which is either illegal of itself or illegal if it has the purpose
> or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.
> 
> Part IVA, entitled Unconscionable Conduct, prohibits unfair conduct
> by a company in connection with the supply of goods or services to
> consumers.
> 
> Note that this part may not apply to the domain name administration
> service if it is not really a service to consumers.
> 
> Part V, entitled Consumer Protection, prohibits a number of business
> practices that are prejudicial to consumers.
> 
> Note that this part is generally aimed at consumers and may not
> apply to the domain name administration service.
> 
> Part IV comprising section 45 to 50 seems to be the part that would
> apply to domain name administration services.  Once there are
> multiple domain name administration services, then the following
> sections may become relevant:
> 
> Section 45: Contracts, arrangements or understandings that restrict
> dealings or affect competition
> Section 47: Exclusive dealing
> Section 48: Resale price maintenance
> Section 50: Prohibition of acquisitions that would result in a
> substantial lessening of competition.
> 
> While the Melbourne IT domain name service is a monopoly situation,
> Part IV Section 46 - Misuse of Market Power - appears to be the
> relevant section.
> 
> Section 46 prohibits an organisation which has a substantial degree
> of power in a market from taking advantage of this market power for
> any one of the following purposes:
> 
> a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor
> b) preventing the entry of a person into any market
> c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive
> behaviour in any market
> 
> Item b) may be relevant:
> For Melbourne IT to force everyone to renew for one or two year
> periods without offering to refund money on a pro-rata basis for any
> domain names that wish to change to an alternative service could be
> construed as a misuse of market power by locking in existing
> customers to prevent the entry of a competitor into the domain name
> administration market.
> The penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the act are severe
> and can be imposed on both the organisation and its employees.  The
> existing penalties for a breach of the Competition Law Provisions of
> the Trade Practices Act are up to $10 million for an organisation
> and $500,000 for an employee.
> 
> Those employee penalties would take quite some time to repay on an
> academic's salary]
> 
> DISCLAIMER] I'm not a lawyer, and anyone should check with a real
> legal eagle before acting on any of the above.
> 
> Regards, Mark
> 
>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> *  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
> *  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
> *  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
> *  Date and Time: 12/27/96  11:56:15    *
>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark

I am not a lawyer either but I have studied corporate law and my
understanding is that melbIT would have difficulty in enforcing their
feb disconnect because the convention prior to their _declaration_ was
that there was no name "expiry" period so their choice of 3 months is
without foundation. As others have suggested here, the far more
practical (and to use the melbIT rationale "customer service oriented")
choice would be to address this as there is a change. Personally, I
believe they are bringing troubles on themselves by not taking the
anniversary approach.

Seasons Greetings
Gary
Received on Mon Dec 30 1996 - 11:18:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC