> Scott, that's all very well after the fact, but firstly, I'm sure you'll
> agree that hosting AUNIC in the US is strategically a little ridiculous,

I dont think it is the preferred option, but I find it less rediculous
than selling it to a toy registrar for spam-value.. As I said in the
email, that was my opinion and that there were other options to the one
they followed, thats all..

> and secondly, does your offer include the $30k odd of equipment as well and
> are you prepared to accept the financial liability implied by failure to
> achieve SLA's? All  of this is included in the contract.

Nope, my offer didnt include $30k of equipment.. It could have.. I imagine
I coulda called up some people and arranged some HA boxes.. Heck, if I had
to I might manage 24x7 warm body montoring, simultaneous advertising in
each continent, redundancy, load balancing, failover, topological based
routing, etc, etc.. I run 100% uptime systems for a living.. I know I
could do it.. I would also argue that it wasnt necessary..

> The site is currently hosted at the NetRegistry datacentre on a 45MB ATM
> link with a 8MB backup. Utilisation is less than 5% currently (average).

*shrug* my mail box has two OC-3's.. you wanna play the biggest-penis game
then Im all set..

> It is bullshit - I'm making a point - the accepted tender offered free
> services in return for graphic logo placement on the AUNIC site.
> NetRegistry didn't accept the tender - we oferred it. If you have a problem
> with it, then you have a problem with auDA, not NetRegistry.

I dont claim that you did anything dodgy to get the deal.. and it was a
good deal that you got.. My point is that Auda did have other options and
in my opinion they had a better option than the one that they took.. If I
was Auda I wouldnt consider defacing the aunic website like that..

Oh, and for the record I have a problem with *both* Auda and NetRegistry..
I could rant for hours about my view on them both, but I have a better
use for my time.. :)

Scott..