RE: [DNS] RE: [Oz-ISP] auDA hypocrisy (again)

RE: [DNS] RE: [Oz-ISP] auDA hypocrisy (again)

From: Phil Wright <newsstuff§network.au.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:26:17 +1000
Speaking of balance and fair play in accordance to the rules......

I have been looking into a few things for a client and discovered this:

I am wondering if the holder/vendor of the following would be in compliance
with auDA rules???

	http://www.accounting.com.au/
	http://www.accountancy.com.au/
	http://www.taxrefunds.com.au/
	http://www.tax.net.au/
	http://www.taxagents.net.au/
	http://www.etaxagents.com.au/
	http://www.taxspecialists.com.au/

To me it seems contrary to the spirit of fair play in the .net.au space to
have "tax.net.au" as well as "taxagents.net.au" despite having so many tax
related .com.au domains - what do others think?

Surely auDA couldn't class these as different brands in the same way that
Commodore, Astra, and Statesman are brands of Holden?

Are the rules written well enough to deal with such possible deliberate
squatting activity??  or were they just not detected?

It would appear to me that there isn't bona-fide business operations being
conducted directly in conjunction with these domains as they all point to
the same page. There does however appear to be a possible (though perhaps
only slight) bona-fide business operating under the name Griffin O'Dea Real
Estate (www.griffinodea.com)

That brings me to the point of the responsibility of Registrars:
Should incidences such as mass registration (that may be potential
squatting) across both .net.au and .com.au be reported to auDA by the
registrar?

I note that Enetica was the registrar for all of these domains bar one. Here
are some nic search results:

	Registrar ID:            R00013-AR
	Registrar Name:          Enetica
	Status:                  ok
	Registrant:              Tax Specialists Pty Ltd
	Registrant ID:           ABN 073674398
	Registrant ROID:         C0897909-AR
	Registrant Contact Name: Shane ODea
	Registrant Email:        dns&#167;odea.net
	Tech ID:                 C0889588-AR
	Tech Name:               Shane O Dea
	Tech Email:              shane&#167;griffinodea.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
	Registrant:              Income Tax Specialists Pty Ltd
	Registrant ID:           Other 073 674 398
-------------------------------------------------------------------
	Domain ROID:             D0289258-AR
	Domain Name:             tax.net.au
	Last Modified:           10-Jul-2002 12:31:36 UTC
	Registrar ID:            R00013-AR
	Registrar Name:          Enetica
	Status:                  ok
	Registrant:              Income Tax Specialists Pty Ltd
	Registrant ID:           Other 073674398
	Registrant ROID:         C0867768-AR
	Registrant Contact Name: THE MANAGER
	Registrant Email:        dns&#167;odea.net
	Tech ID:                 C0867770-AR
	Tech Name:               unknown
	Tech Email:              unknown_contact&#167;ausregistry.net.au

Note:
- the ABN quoted above appears to be missing the first 2 digits?
- the ACN 073674398 according to the National Names Index on ASIC shows that
the name of the company is in fact "TAX SPECIALISTS PTY LTD"
- the same search also showed the former names of the same company were
"INCOME TAX SPECIALISTS PTY LTD" and "GRIFFIN O'DEA PTY LTD"

All of these domains were sold through the recent auction process so this is
something that also could have potentially been picked up or noted by auDA
when they were handling the registration of bidders or issue of licences to
successful bidders.

To a relatively lay person like myself (sic), and my client, it would appear
that some if not all of these names were licensed to various names under the
one ACN number by a single organisation/person using multiple entity names
including former and now defunct names??

Note - that "Income Tax Specialists" was used for registration on 10 July
2002 despite the last name change for that company being "12/10/1998 205A
Notification of Resolution Changing Company Name" and previous to that
"27/05/1996 205A Notification of Resolution Changing Company Name"

Could this be true?  Is this assumption valid?

I understand that I may be wrong in my assumptions but something here
doesn't add up and doesn't seem to be detected or dealt with under the auDA
RULES

Phil Wright



-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh&#167;email.nu]
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2002 9:50 AM
To: aussie-isp&#167;aussie.net; 'Skeeve Stevens'; Dns List
Subject: [DNS] RE: [Oz-ISP] auDA hipocrisy (again)


auDA Published Policies
http://www.auda.org.au/policy/policy-index.html

Clarification of Domain Name Licence - Prohibition on Sale of Domain
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-24.txt

Interim Transfers (Change of Registrant) Policy
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-18.txt

"3. CIRCUMSTANCES OF TRANSFER

3.1	A registrant may transfer their domain name licence to a
proposed new registrant if one of the following circumstances applies:

[snip-snip]

b) if the domain name is used within the operations of the registrant
and either the registrant or the operations are acquired by, merged
into, devolved to or joined with the operations of the proposed new
registrant;"


Josh
--
http://josh.id.au/
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Aug 29 2014 - 00:00:11 UTC