RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

From: Mark Hughes <effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:57:26 +1100
> Is there to be any mechanism to ensure that only accredited
> resellers actually do the selling?

Err, and then what happens??  Do the accredited resellers then only sell to
accredited re-resellers?  Ad infinitum?  The idea that having accredited
re-sellers will solve the problem is a fantasy.  Lets move on from it.

Anyone can register their own company name or busines name.  Just truck on
down to your local government dept and do so.

Are we seriously suggesting that on the internet, this paragon of
efficiency, we're going to have more layers & restrictions on who can do
what than a government bureaucracy??  Gawd help us if we design a system
that enables government to point a finger at us and say "you have a worse
bureaucracy than us".

Actually, the whole concept of "accredited re-sellers" seems odd to me.  If
we assume there will be multiple Registrars, and that the hurdle for
Registrars isn't a major barrier to entry (and it doesn't appear to be from
the agreement and application form on the auDA website), then the re-seller
role as different from anyone else registering domain names may be just:

* a small volume related price discount (small 'cause there won't be much
margin to play with in a competitive environment) to a 're-seller'
* account payments for the 're-seller' vs payment via credit card for anyone
else

Difficult to see what else could possibly differentiate a 're-seller' from
anyone else who registers a domain name through a Registrar.


Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark&#167;businesspark.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 10:15
> To: 'dns&#167;auda.org.au'
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
>
> Chris, thanks.  I'm not against you in this, and I have seen your several
> explanatory posts on the matter.  I'm trying to "wake up" those
> who are, as
> you say, in a position to do something about educating their
> customer base.
> But they alone cannot bear the entire responsibility, because it's largely
> reactive information.  What's missing is proactive education.
>
> Mark Hughes makes a valid point, though.  The CoC will apply to accredited
> resellers.  Is there to be any mechanism to ensure that only accredited
> resellers actually do the selling?
>
> Ron Stark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo&#167;auda.org.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 9:47 AM
> To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
>
> Ron,
>
> With respect, I have, on several occasions, through various fora including
> this one, requested re-sellers and ISPs etc to email our Consumer
> Alerts to
> their customers. I do not know how many have done this. I would
> have thought
> that providing this information to them would be valuable for the customer
> and good business/marketing for the re-seller/ISP.
>
> auDA does not, at present, have the funds to instigate a public awareness
> campaign which by necessity would be scatter-gun in its approach
> (newspaper
> ads etc). The re-sellers have the ability to deliver targeted bullets by
> making their customers aware of the problems.
>
> Of course, our aim is to ensure that marketing such as that used by IRA
> ceases as soon as possible. Once we have introduced the new regime then I
> believe we will succeed. However, it is important to note that in the new
> model our jurisdiction is only by way of our Agreement with a
> Registrar and
> vicariously, through the Registrar to the re-seller. We have no
> legal powers
> that are equivalent to ACCC. All we can do is to terminate a Registrar or
> re-seller from being 'auDA Accredited' and possibly sue them for
> damages for
> breach of any Agreement.
>
> It really is the role of ACCC to police business practices over
> and above a
> particular industry's Code of Practice and that will remain the case for
> this industry after the new model comes in.
>
> I understand that many in the business find the current situation
> frustrating. I find it extremely frustrating. As I recall I have, in the
> past, on this list, expressed my surprise that ACCC is either unwilling or
> unable to take any action. I still feel that way.
>
> Let me once again clarify the position as we see it:-
>
> 1. We have no legal relationship with re-sellers and have no 'terms' to
> which we can make them adhere.
> 2. Melbourne IT has a legal contract with all re-sellers and they can take
> action under that if they wish. So, MIT could terminate IRA's licence as a
> re-seller if they believe it has been breached. Whilst that might not stop
> IRA from trading it would mean that they could no longer use references to
> being 'authorised' etc.
> 3. There are only 3 things that IRA and others can breach at the moment
> a) The TPA in which case, over to ACCC.
> b) Their Licence Agreement with MIT in which case, over to MIT.
> c) The interim Code of Practice which is voluntary and therefore cannot be
> enforced.
> 4. In the future we will have a far greater degree of control
> because of the
> Registrars Agreement and the published policies which will
> include the Code
> of Practice.
>
> Incidentally, FYI, the following organisations have so far
> notified us that
> they will abide by the Code of Conduct:
> * Bunyip IT Services
> * Get Started Australia
> * Highway 1
> * Island Internet Services
> * Satlink Internet Services Pty Ltd
> * SydneyBiz
> * MIT
> Regards,
>
> Chris Disspain
> CEO - auDA
> ceo&#167;auda.org.au
> +61-3-9349-4711
> www.auda.org.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark&#167;businesspark.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2001 21:37
> To: 'dns&#167;auda.org.au'
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
> Don, you have highlighted another fundamental problem.  The way auDA
> currently seems to operate is to place publicly important
> information (such
> as the release of the CoC, comments thereon, consumer alerts) on their
> website, is if that somehow absolves them from further action.  However,
> this passive form of publicity effectively hides the relevant information
> from everything but a dedicated effort at discovery, and only then by
> persons who have prior knowledge of its existence.
>
> Not one of my clients to whom I've spoken has ever heard of auDA.
>  None know
> of the website's existence.  So who is accountable, then, for the
> ignorance
> in our marketplace?  More importantly, how can auDA redress it?
> Such is one
> reason why predators thrive.
>
> In reaction to your suggested model:  As attractive as it is, I believe it
> has one inherent weakness - the supposition that whatever
> authority sets the
> parameters has sufficient information / feedback from the coalface to know
> what parameters need to be set.  In other words, are we ready for it?
>
> So we're back to where we started to some extent - needing grass roots
> consumer input.
>
> Ron Stark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Cameron [mailto:donc&#167;mudgeeab.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2001 9:02 PM
> To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
>
> >> self-regulation can work (snip)
>
> Agreed Ron, there are many examples of this working very well in a variety
> of Australian industries.
>
> >> but only if we entrench the power to act decisively (snip)
>
> Again, agreed, and in your comment... "I'm fearful that we risk being
> emasculated by apathy", you have no doubt highlighted the fundamental
> problem.
>
> I am perhaps less surprised than might be expected, that my comment on the
> proposed Code of Conduct is only one of two to be received by auDA... and
> the other is from an anonymous sender. Clearly the Internet
> industry itself
> is not keen on self-regulatory measures being implemented, and
> I'm sure the
> broader Internet user-base is largely unaware of the existence of
> the draft
> Code, or that comments are even being requested. (PS - has auDA
> removed the
> documents section from their web? - Admitedly I only spent ten minutes
> searching, however I can no longer find any links to the document
> archives,
> yet I'm sure these were available/visible from the front-page only a few
> days ago - I would hope with the appraching AGM that these will
> be placed in
> a position of prominance).
>
> Accepting that industry regulation is desireable, yet acknowledging the
> roles, rights and responsibilities of Government in .au administration,
> perhaps the 'best' option might be for NOIE to take a more active role in
> these matters. NOIE could adopt the industry self-regulatory model being
> implemented by another Federal Authority in AQIS (The Australian
> Quarantine
> Inspection Service). AQIS are granting authorities for industry regulation
> to industrial partners, however the policies for regulation (Codes of
> Conduct and industrial procedures etc.) are set by AQIS for industry to
> follow. In essence, AQIS sets the paramaters, and industrial bodies ensure
> compliance through the processes of self-audit and recognised Quality
> Assurance procedures (such as I outlined earlier in respect to records
> management - ISO15489).
>
> This model would go a long way towards alieviating the burden of the
> Internet industry itself setting community protection policies
> (when clearly
> some sections of the industry object to these policies), however
> the rights
> of administering and auditing policy compliance would remain with the
> industry itself - in this case auDA - this model would provide
> the 'muscle'
> without removing the self-regulatory authorities, and (I feel) would go a
> long way towards helping to create a structure that protects the customers
> as well as those who profit from .au sales.
>
> Regards, Don
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 320 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 321 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 322 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 322 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 322 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
Received on Wed Nov 21 2001 - 00:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Aug 22 2014 - 20:00:09 UTC