RE: [DNS] Fwd: Melbourne IT Ltd. | CONSUMER WARNING - Affecting your Domain Name

RE: [DNS] Fwd: Melbourne IT Ltd. | CONSUMER WARNING - Affecting your Domain Name

From: Mark Hughes <effectivebusiness§>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:46:08 +1000
> >
> Don't know your Corporations law huh?

No, I'm pleased to say I don't know my Corporations Law - and hope I never

But apparently you don't either.

> The Directors can initiate the process.
> The Law is written to enable that.

The part of the corporations law you referred to above enables members to
remove directors.  It says nothing about enabling directors to remove other

Its possible that you might find that a bit less time honing your
moviemaking skills and bit more time brushing up your English comprehension
skills to be advantageous.

Its clear that the auDA constitution and the Corporations Law enables
members to initiate an action to remove a director.  If people aren't happy
with the conduct of an auDA director, they can become a member and either
vote for someone else at the next election, or initiate a process to remove
a director.  Or both.

Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
+61 4 1374 3959

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Todd [mailto:auda&#167;]
> Sent: Monday, 8 July 2002 12:12
> To: dns&#167;
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Fwd: Melbourne IT Ltd. | CONSUMER WARNING - Affecting
> your Domain Name
> >Its pretty silly blaming the directors of auDA for not removing
> a particular
> >director - the directors don't have the authority.  The members do - and
> >they're the appropriate group to do so, since they elected the directors.
> 203D Removal by members--public companies
> Resolution for removal of director
> Don't know your Corporations law huh?
> >If anyone thinks a particular director should go, then they
> should initiate
> >the process.  It doesn't take much to become an auDA member.
> The Directors can initiate the process.  The Law is written to enable
> that.  Clearly the Directors don't feel that the person brought into
> question should be removed.
> Very interesting isn't it.
> So the Directors who purport to represent the "interests of the public"
> refuse to take action under Corporations Law allowing them to resolve to
> remove a Director with whom the "public" (that being the people
> those other
> directors represent) are not happy with.
> Interesting when you look at it carefully.
> > > I don't think the remedy Instra gave when auDA first took them
> > > to task over is good enough (that is, the
> link and the
> > > top sentence of the web page.)
> >
> >It might be helpful if everyone understood the underlying legal principle
> >that individuals or entities who have been disadvantaged by deceptive
> >practices are the ones that can take action.
> Or in the case of auDA who are endorsed by the Federal Government
> to ACT ON
> BEHALF OF and for the GOOD of the public, can take action thereof.
> Clearly auDA is NOT self-regulating the industry.
> auDA is allowing the industry to regulate itself.  There is a VERY
> significant difference, legally and ethically, not to mention morally.
> I'm glad we finally go to that point.
> >In general, if you're unaffected by someone else's actions, then
> you can't
> >complain about them being deceptive.
> No one has said anything about Trade Practices.  auDA has been criticized
> for allowing the POTENTIAL (read it as contributory negligence) for a
> consumer to be mislead.
> When i find a consumer who purchases through this process and suddenly
> feels mislead I'll be sure they get a copy of THIS message and
> thread, and
> greatly encouraged to bring auDA to account through the courts.  I'll be
> watching very carefully the ACCC to ensure they too - ultimately - do the
> right thing.
> >If you think about it you'll see that its a pretty sensible
> legal basis -
> >otherwise all sorts of people would be able to make frivolous
> claims about
> >other entities even if those making the claim were unaffected.
> There is not frivolous claim here. auDA has itself admitted there
> could be
> a chance of confusion.  That's enough to bind it for contributory
> negligence, or being a conspirator to a deceptive practise.
> >So if a consumer believes they have been disadvantaged in some way by
> >deception caused by the similarity between
> and
> >, they have grounds to take action.
> Yes, but only AFTER they are a victim.  Why is our society so fixated on
> CURE, rather than PREVENTION.
> We claim to VACCINATE children in order to PREVENT illness and death, yet
> when it comes to the consumers hip pocket, we can only offer them a CURE,
> if and only if the consumer has more HIP POCKET to pay for the cure.
> What ever happened to PREVENTION - which in my eyes, is a
> paramount part of
> "self-regulation."
> >And if a Registrar believes they have been disadvantaged in some way by
> >deception caused by the similarity between and
>, they have grounds to take action.

Again, a CURE process.  A costly legal process where the winner is the one
with the deepest pockets, or the first to call for surety under the Court's

LEGAL is for the rich, not for the disadvantaged.  Legal action is to
establish law, we do NOT have a system of JUSTICE in Australia, we have a
system of LAW.

People always think that COURTS are for justice.  WRONG.

>But it's much harder for auDA or AusRegistry to claim they've been
>disadvantaged, as those two entities loose no business / revenue due to the
>existence of

Ahhh, so what you are now saying is that to auDA and Ausregistry, it
doesn't matter whether a consumer is mislead to make a purchase because at
the end of the day, the monopoly position of auDA and Ausregistry sees the

So in other words, auDA and Ausregistry have conspired to price fix and
control the sale and distribution of a product from the source of


Want to try another line of argument, before I try and encourage all those
not happy with auDA and Ausregistry to seek LEGAL resolution.  (I stress
TRY because trying to gather public and industry support beyond joining a
mail list is normally a waste of time.)

> > Clearly auDA wasn't "fast enough" to BUY the names in ALL the name
> > it needed as it's own policies and politics demands.
>auDA sensibly didn't try to buy the all the versions of auDA or AUNIC in
>the .au namespace.  There's no benefit to auDA in doing so.  Registering
>every version of a domain name is a real 'loser's' strategy - but favourite
>of those with a flawed understanding of the realities of domain name

However, auDA allowing others to register versions is in fact agreeing to
allow them to mislead the consumer.

Innit it odd.

List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (333 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC