Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 05:26:33 +0100
Adam and all,

Adam Todd wrote:

> >   to believe that
> >
> > a. you were not aware of this campaign
> > b. you did not encourage this campaign
>
> Clive I can'ty speak for Larry and his operation, but I can speak for myself.
>
> Recently I was made aware by a Domain Name Licencee about the details in
> how they were sold some 20 domain names.

  First of all please clarify, the "They" in this comment.  I am assuming you are
referring to Netregistry.  If not or if so, please clarify.

>
>
> I asked them to fax me the material that was sent to them to be very shocked.
>
> I approved material in January this year for the reseller to use, of which
> they produced.  It was a 3 page document and was within acceptable
> limitations.
>
> The client faxed to me a document dated March 1998 that was 6 pages long
> and went WAY BEYOND reasonable at all.
>
> >&   "" method they were using to have generated such sales.
>
> As to the method, in my instance I was aware of the methode as far as I had
> two  of my direct staff make "test" enquiries.  Both reported that within
> the first 2 minutes they were put on hold for 60 seconds, then the sales
> person returned.  The story sold to them sounded fair.
>
> A client recorded their conversation and played it to me.  It was VERY VERY
> different.
>
> > a.      Ensure that NONE of your current or future resellers repeat this.
>
> In my instance we are doing this.  It is now a requirement that the client
> or the agent fill in the online application forms.  We no longer accept the
> agents details on the form as they are identified by agent code.
>
> > b.      Ensure that your resellers are trained to provide the FACTS to the
> >consumers.
>
> This isn't the job of the manufacturer.  Really.  You don't see Johnson and
> Johnson going around to Coles Checkout Staff educating them on the way to
> insert a tampon - do you?
>
> >Such as          au.com is a Privately owned Domain name 
>
> And so we shodu lalso advertise that a Holden Commodore isn't an offical
> car because it's not a Model T Ford?
>
> > it is NOT a recognized country level domain
>
> I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  .COM isn't a country
> domain either.  What is your comment about .COM ??
>
> > it is not an accepted country code as is com.au  
>
> au.com isn't a country code.  At what time did Larry say it was?

  As far as I know com.au is not a country code either.  But it appears
that Netregistry is attempting to sell au.com as an alternative ccTLD
or you might literally call it a cc2LD.  And the accompanying E-Mail that
Larry sent along with his post in this regard saying that Jon Postal
"Officially" recognizes this, is quite interesting indeed.  This tends
to make us believe that Jon is supportive to cc2LD's as alternatives
to ccTLD's.  We see nothing wrong with this.  But it is a departure
from what the IANA has stated in the past as this is outside of
what the IANA initiated and singed with respect to IHAC/MoU/CORE,
is it not?  Or is Netregistry a signatory of the CORE-MoU?  I don't believe they
are.  Hence this is a departure to what the IANA is "Officially" supported.
But if you did notice the date on the quoted Postal E-Mail, it was early January
I believe.  That was just after the GP came out.  Interesting turnaround for
Jon Postal to make and timely as well if indeed that is the case.

>
>
> >Net registry is not recognized by the
> >existing Internet community as an official Registrar
>
> You might get yourself a law suite from that statement.  Define an "Offical
> Registrar?

  At this time that is a good question.  However, still NSI until september is
the only official registrar or has the ability to appoint an official registrar in
the
.COM gTLD name space.  So now we are back to whether au.com is
a alternative ccTLD or is it a cc2LD?  My what webs we weave!

>
>
> I might add my name was bandied for an hour or so around a Congressional
> meeting in the Whitehouse a few weeks ago.  The results have been extremely
> positive for me.  I am recognised as an official entity in my own right.
>
>        they are
> >buying a 3rd level domain name from a Privately owned Domain name in
> >contrast to com.au which is currently administered by Melbourne IT under
> >the aegis of the .au registrar hence providing legitimacy and longevity 
>
> So we shoudnl't buy Software from Computer stores because they are thrid
> level resellers of the original product?
>
> >  c.      & New Zealand Domain Name Registry as a result of this fax
> >campaign get         a letter of explanation and apology        a FULL
> >refund from Net Registry.
>
> Sorry but technicalll Net Registry isn't responsible to the client.  Just
> like RObert Elz isn't responsible for the sale of a COM.AU name.  There is
> no requirement for a FULL refund from Net Registry to the consumer.

  I don't agree that Netregistry is not responsible to the client.  If they are
a good business and operate in an honest manner that must be responsible
to the client.  If the consumer believes that he has been mislead, than it is
the duty and the responsibility of that consumer to report that concern.  At least

that is true in the US anyway.  I take it that is true in Australia as well.

>
>
> That is not to say the NZ company shouldn't provide a full refund if required.
>
> I'm *STILL* waiting for my FULL REFUND for a rejected name from MIT.  I
> guess I'll prosecute that one shortly too!!
>
> >  I trust that this will not occur again.
>
> I trust you don't take money under false pretence now also?  I spose my
> promoting you to acquire legal advice and the advice I provided helped a
> little.  You still haven't paid my consulting fee.  When do you intend
> doing that - or was the consultation between myself and your staff set up
> to defraud me?
>
> THE DOMAIN NAME HANDBOOK                   http://www.domainhandbook.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
> or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for
> republication of comments, without written consent.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
> Telstra Convey Member (not employee)      AURSC    http://www.aursc.ah.net
> Adam Todd                                 Personal http://adamtodd.ah.net
> at&#167;aus  or  at@ah.net                              http://adam.says.sheesh
> Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network  http://www.ah.net
> AU Internet News                http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/INTERNET/
> AU Internet User Mail List      http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/OZ-USER/
> INTERNATIONAL ROOT SERVER CONFEDERATION MEMBER     http://www.i.rsc

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1&#167;ix.netcom.com
Received on Wed Jun 17 1998 - 22:52:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Sep 22 2014 - 08:00:06 UTC