Re: [DNS] domain news

Re: [DNS] domain news

From: Chris Berkeley <magic2147§optushome.com.au>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:37:34 +1000
On 29 Aug 2002 at 9:31, Jon Lawrence wrote:

Send reply to:  	dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Date sent:      	Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:31:41 +0100
From:           	"Jon Lawrence" <jon&#167;jonlawrence.com>
To:             	dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
Subject:        	Re: [DNS] domain news

> Chris
> 
> FYI - the auDA accredited registrar that is registered in Barbados is actually
> physically based in Nepean, Ontario (near Ottawa I think).  Which of course
> begs the question - which aspect(s) of Canadian law are they avoiding?

I didn't suggest that they are in any conflict with Canadian law. I don't think that for an 
Australian dealing with them the fact that they are physically located in Canada would 
be of much help. They would claim no doubt in the event that they were sued under 
Canadian law that they were in fact a Barbadian entity and not Ontarian and as such 
must be sued in the Barbadian legal system. I am sure that the souls who are physically 
in Canada are merely agents or contractors for the Barbadian entity and would be hard 
to pin down. Frankly that is why they have chosen to register in a tiny Carribian failed 
statelet rather than for want of a better word a more respectable jurisdiction. But I may 
be wrong. 

Which bring us to the point that I was trying to make earlier is that we are being forced 
to deal with, in the main, companies that in the ordinary course of business one might, if 
one was risk averse, not choose to deal with.

The parent company of Ausregistry, RegistrarsAsia Pty Ltd, appears to have a paid up 
capital of $10.00 most of the shares being owned by someone whose address is given 
as Manly NSW. 

The registry company itself has a paid up capital of $1000. The company is owned by 
RegistrarsAsia Pty Ltd (92%) and Afilias Limited (8%). This latter is a privately held 
company registered in Ireland and is among other things the registry that runs .info but 
the saga with the .info sunrise situation and their CEO and the fact that Ireland is 
currently viewed as one of the most corrupt places in Europe to do business does not 
necessarily fill one with confidence.

Looking at the website of RegistrarsAsia Pty Limited I find that that they are into all 
sorts of things: web site hosting and design being just two of them.

Ausregistry and RegistrarsAsia have much in common - they share the same offices 
and the same 2 directors (one of whom owns no shares in either company). Where is 
the firewall between the operations of the two entities? How can there be one? It seems 
to me that most resellers at least are being forced to deal albeit at one remove with a 
registry that is to all intents and purposes a competitor. Frankly I do not care for Adrian 
Kinderis to be privy to my business when he is the General Manager and director of a 
competitor whist at the same time being the Managing Director of the registry. If I were 
to register some .au domain names on behalf of a client in a particular industry area 
how can I be confident that such information could not reach their competitors who 
might be the clients of RegistrarsAsia? I appreciate that there is a privacy policy in 
place but I am sure that Adrian would not claim that his brain or those of his staff are 
firewalled. I am not suggesting that any leakage has occured or will occur but there is a 
possibility of the perception of such a risk it seems to me. At the very least the two 
entities should be distinct, operate from separate premises and share no officers in 
common. It is most improper in my view that they should in regards to their officers be 
to the all intents and purposes the same entities.

When one has occasion to contact Ausregistry one has to do so via a standard 
telephone number. There are no 1300 or 1800 facilities provided - a situation that 
seems to be unique for a registry company in a major economy. A reasonable person 
might suspect that this was perhaps indicative of a lack of capital. My experience is that 
the young people who answer the phone manage to be both insolent and truculent. 
Perhaps they are under pressure but the contrast with the staff at the previous registry 
is remarkable. The commonest solution they provide is for one to call auDA or talk to a 
registrar when in fact the issues appear to be with their systems. The company does not 
appear to have developed systems that cover reasonably predictable situations 
resulting in inconvenience and delay. I am personally not confident that if I were to 
lodge a complaint with auDA about a specific incident that there would not be 
ramifications for me or my clients. There seems to be a too close and personal 
relationship between RegistrarAsia/Ausregistry and auDA for comfort. For the example 
the officers of both organisations fly to ICANN conferences together - not a crime but 
not at arms length either. There does not appear to be any formal complaint system in 
place at auDA and there does not seem to be any protection for a complainant against 
being sued for libel and slander.

One of the things that was held out to us was that the new system would work well and 
be transparent. At the moment I don't think anyone could say this. Am I alone in saying 
that I would be prefer to be dealing with a publicly listed entity or a co-op/mutual that 
would provide both the registry and registrar function (I can't see why they should be 
separate in Australia) and who was not essentially a competitor?

cb





Unlike most registries they are only open during quite limited hours 
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Sep 21 2014 - 16:00:11 UTC