Re: [DNS] Response to Larry Bloch's comments on ""

Re: [DNS] Response to Larry Bloch's comments on ""

From: andre <andre§>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:38:01 +0100
I think Larry knows what he is doing.

Two types of people in the world, horses and jockeys.

Larry bud, saddle up and see you for a cold one soon.


ps: "Harry-nothing personal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Hoholis" <webmaster&#167;>
To: <dns&#167;>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Response to Larry Bloch's comments on ""

> Larry,
> 1 week later and still no comment from you. I guess you just think that
> you can go on forever sweeping it under the carpet.
> Does anyone else on this list have an opinion on this matter? or are you
> resigned to the fact that Larry Bloch will just continue to rip-off
> and make a mockery of the industry?
> Anyone else out there who would like an answer to my questions?
> Harry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Hoholis [mailto:webmaster&#167;]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 2:55 PM
> To: dns&#167;
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Response to Larry Bloch's comments on ""
> Yes Bruce, but NetRegistry does NOT inform its clients the nature of what
> is
> That is the only thing I am requesting Mr. Bloch to clarify. The rest in
> terms of
> business conduct is fine. If you see a market go for it. He did that. Good
> for you
> Larry. But at the same time you lied and misled people about what
> were
> You refuse to address this issue. Your web sites still lie and mislead
> and several months ago I emailed your support requesting that you
> provide
> info on how common domains were. The reply was that 20,000 plus
> domains
> were registered. At $50 each per annum thats $1 million dollars per year.
> Larry this is a question which I would like a specific answer to. Do you
> really claim and think that
> the Australian public would give you $1 million dollars per annum if they
> actually
> read this email from Mr. Tonkin?
> That is why I am attacking your integrity. Because your actions in this
> matter
> stink. You are way past an honest buck. In fact $1 million per annum of
> dishonest bucks.
> Harry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin&#167;]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 1:18 PM
> To: 'dns&#167;'
> Subject: [DNS] Response to Larry Bloch's comments on ""
> Hello All,
> I support sensible debate on this mailing list versus personal attacks, or
> commercially motivated attacks.
> The following is a response to Larry Bloch's statements on "".
> >
> > NetRegistry promoted as a viable alternative to
> > at a time
> > when it took 10 days to register a It also exploited the
> > difficulties in obtaining a generic or arbitrary name in - a
> > situation that remains the case today.
> I think that is a fair statement.  There is nothing wrong with operating a
> private registry within the domain name space.  "" provides the
> service of converting a text identifier into a physical Internet address.
> It effectively competes against "" based on providing a more
> policy for registration.  It is supported as part of the authoritative
> and does not require changes in configuration of an individual's or ISP's
> DNS software (as the alternate root approaches require).   In fact there
> private companies that operate country code registries (e.g ".cc", ".tv")
> with a similar objective to provide an alternative to ".com", and the
> restrictions on major country code registries such as ".au", ".uk" etc.
> Other private companies have also done the same with other country codes
> within the ".com" domain name space, e.g "" etc.  So in other
> a domain name in "" works in the same way as a domain name in
> "", ".com", ".cc" etc.
> The policies for "" in contrast are now set by an Australian self
> regulatory body (auDA), although they were originally set by one
> (Mr Robert Elz).
> Problems can arise in confusion between two domains that may look very
> similar e.g
> and  A company registering in "" may
> that they have registered in "", and a user trying to find a
> "wxyz" in "" may inadvertently type  The converse also
> applies.  This can also give rise to security problems.
> The Names Panel (
> considered this issue and made the following recommendation for domains
> within ".au":
> **************
> " 3.6 Domain names that match TLDs
> Recommendation:
> Domain names that match TLDs are not allowed.
> The Panel notes RFC 1535, which points out that domain names with two
> characters (eg. could 'trick' some types of client software,
> thereby giving rise to possible security problems where the domain name is
> the same as a ccTLD. Potentially, a domain name that is the same as a gTLD
> (eg. could be misused in the same manner. The Panel therefore
> recommends a prohibition on domain names that match TLDs.
> The Panel suggests that domain name licence applicants should be advised
> that if they license a domain name that is subsequently allocated as a
> then the licence may be revoked."
> **********
> At the recent ICANN meeting in Montevideo
> (, this issue was
> also considered with regard to registering names in ".info".
> The Government Advisory Committee to ICANN stated:
> " ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has concluded that "the
> issue of geographical and geopolitical names is very complex, and the
> subject of ongoing international discussion," and has stated its belief
> these issues are particularly important in the context of the new Top
> Domain .info considering its "special nature";
> .., the GAC has therefore suggested that "interim ad hoc measures should
> taken by ICANN and the Registries to prevent avoidable conflicts in
> As an outcome, ICANN has temporarily stopped the registration of names
> as "" until the matter can be considered further.
> I stress that there is no right or wrong answer to this issue, it is
> a matter of the community deciding collectively what they want to occur.
> the case of ".com", the lack of any restrictions or discussions on this
> issue, means that "" is quite legitimate.
> It is a matter of general consumer education to inform consumers that
> "" and "" are separate registries, and that "" is a
> private registry operated with no outside regulation, and "" is
> regulated by auDA with the oversight of the Australian Government (note
> 1.10: auDA and ICANN desire for the Government of Australia to assume
> responsibility for overseeing the interest of Australia and its Internet
> community in the .au top-level domain, with ICANN continuing its role of
> preserving the technical stability and operation of the DNS and Internet
> the interest of the global Internet community. To implement an allocation
> the respective responsibilities of the Government of Australia and ICANN
> with respect to the .au top-level domain on that basis, auDA and ICANN now
> enter into this Agreement to formally reflect their commitments to one
> another.).
> > You may recall that
> > shortly after we
> > introduced the time it took to register a
> > dropped from 10 to
> > 2 days. There is no doubt that this was a competitive response from a
> > monopoly when threatened.
> Well I certainly doubt this.  I understand that Robert Elz delegated the
> administration of "" to Melbourne IT as a response to complaints
> the business community (as represented in an article in the Financial
> Review) on the time taken to register a domain.  Melbourne IT then
> instituted a service level agreement for a 2 day turn around, with a fast
> turn around available at a higher fee.
> With regard to a monopoly, the operation of a domain name "registry" is a
> natural monopoly.
> Netregistry with "" is as much a monopoly (if not more) than
> Melbourne IT is with the registry functions it provides for ""
> The University of Melbourne/Robert Elz, and auDA also provide part of the
> registry services).  Under the new competition model
> ( the
> registry and second level registries ("", "", etc) will be
> out to tender.  This approach is based on the theory of using competition
> during the registry bid process to ensure that the price of registry
> services is as low as possible.  The alternative approach used in the case
> of the monopoly services operated by Telstra, is for the Government to
> regulate the prices of monopoly services.
> > So there has been good for .au from
> > Far
> > from scrapping, NetRegistry's business is to a large
> > degree based on
> > - we are one of INA's biggest customers.
> Agreed.  The webpage
> even lists
> "" first :-)
> >
> > And I do blame a culture that questions my companies motives.
> > Why should
> > those motives be questioned? We, like most companies, are not
> > in business to
> > take unfair advantage of anyone. We're here to try and make
> > an honest buck.
> > To serve our customers and to do our best to be professional,
> > accountable
> > and above all conduct ourselves with integrity and honesty.
> > This is the new
> > business paradim, as far as I am concerned, and it is the
> > backdrop for the
> > overwhelming antipathy towards companies like ING.
> Glad to hear it.   This business paradigm is not new though :-)
> >
> > We are not a well funded, global corporation looking to squeeze small
> > players out. We are a small, unfunded, startup company that
> > has struggled
> > our way through the tech wreck like all of you here.
> Agreed, Melbourne IT is a similar company in that regard.  The float of
> company was not a capital raising exercise, it was a privatisation of the
> company in the same way that the Federal Government privatised part of
> Telstra.
> > I'd like
> > forums like
> > this to be about cooperating with like minded players; not
> > use it as a forum
> > to snipe at each other. Is that what the Internet and forums
> > like tihs are
> > all about? Taking pot shots? Frankly, its more than a little
> > pathetic. There
> > is much more to be achieved than that.
> Agreed.  I also seek cooperation and the public discussion of major
> >
> > Why are we not addressing ING in a way that strives for
> > resolution? Why are
> > we still mistrustful of auDA, when it is clearly the path
> > forward with no
> > alternative (like it or not)? Come on everyone, we can actually make a
> > difference if we can overcome this useless mud slinging.
> >
> > As far as auDA is concerned, I have been far from a friend in
> > times past.
> > But the point is that like it or not, it is going to be the de facto
> > regulatory body. You won't make it go away by sniping, nor
> > will you change
> > decisions by commenting after a process that was open to public
> > consultation. ts precisely this sort of wasteful behavious
> > that retards
> > progress. If you are interested, get involved in the process
> > - its the only
> > way to have your voice heard and considered at this point.
> >
> Agreed.  Melbourne IT is also a supporter of auDA, and in particular
> commends the successful operation of the Names Panel and Competition Panel
> Advisory committees.  It seeks to cooperate with auDA, NOIE, and the the
> rest of the industry and consumers to ensure that the best result is
> achieved for the ".au" domain space.  We also seek to ensure that all
> decisions are made in an open, transparent and consultative manner.
> > My approach to DNS reform in Australia has always been to
> > strive to ensure
> > that there is a level playing field, that the registry is run
> > as a not for
> > profit entity and/or with strict regulatory control over
> > price fixing. I
> > have advocated equal access to the registry for all players -
> > small and
> > large - along the lines of hte UK system (where domain names
> > cost a fifth of
> > what they cost here and get registered in seconds upon application).
> Melbourne IT currently provides equal access to its "" registry
> function for all domain name retailers at a wholesale price.  It also
> supports the principle of equal access going forward into the future as
> described in the competition panel report.
> >
> > I do not stand for complicated accreditation regimes to allow
> > access to the
> > registry. Registering a omain name is a simple activity and
> > the competitive
> > nature of the market ensures in the UK and elsewhere that
> > little advantage
> > can be gained by being able to apply for and register a name - so why
> > restrict or overly accredit access?
> >
> Well it seems to me that there has been a strong call for better
> of "" retailers through the licensing of some retailers as "auDA
> accredited registrars" through the signing of an licence agreement as
> discussed in section 2.4.5 of the competition panel report (which should
> available for public consultation).
> I understand that the licence agreement will incorporate code of conduct
> provisions as discussed in the competition panel report (section 2.4.10)
> (again I hope the code of conduct will be available for public
> consultation).  The accredited registrars will also be responsible for any
> domain name retailers that use their service (ie a registrar could lose
> accreditation to communicate directly to the registry if its resellers
> their accreditation agreement to be violated).
>  > As for AU.COM, the reality is that if you don't like it,
> > don't buy it. I
> > fail to see why it should be so threatening. Its certainly
> > hardly a plot to
> > subvert .au or  - that really is just flattery.
> Yes - it is a consumer choice issue.  The challenge for the industry is to
> ensure that consumers are adequately informed.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 336 subscribers.
> Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 336 subscribers.
> Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 331 subscribers.
> Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.

This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 331 subscribers. 
Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Tue Sep 25 2001 - 14:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC