On 30 Aug 2002 at 10:07, Chris Disspain wrote:

Send reply to:  	dns§lists.auda.org.au
From:           	"Chris Disspain" <ceo&#167;auda.org.au>
To:             	<dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Date sent:      	Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:07:22 +1000
Subject:        	RE: [DNS] WHOIS lookups

> Just for clarity, there is no secret to the relationship between
> Registrars Asia and AusRegistry. Under the terms of the Registry Licence
> Agreement (to which auDA, AusRegistry and Registrars Asia are all
> parties) Registrars Asia agree not to conduct registrar business in .au.
> However, there is nothing to prevent them from continuing to act as a
> registrar in other ccTLD spaces or the gTLD spaces. This was made clear
> in various announcements and documents published by auDA at the time the
> tender was finalised.
> 

Is a copy of this agreement available to the public?

> Pursuant to this agreement, at the commencement of the new regime,
> Registrars Asia ceased to act as a registrar in .au and the registrant
> clients they held as a Melbourne IT reseller reverted back to MIT.
> 

Did you go to the same school as Dick Alston? This does not answer the question 
regarding the common officers and presumably staff between the two entities. It is 
impossible to be sure, on the current evidence. that there can be no crossover between 
the information in the possession of one to the other. It is unreasonable for you to 
suggest at this point that there could be no crossover as auDA does not appear to have 
any systems in place to monitor or prevent it.

What is the position of the clients of Ausregistry if they wish to licence a .au domain? 
Are they left to their own devices or are they assisted by an associated or related 
entity? If they are left to their own devices then in any event RegistrarsAsia is ultimately 
a beneficiary of any transactions in this regard. 

> Hopefully this provides an explanation for those who have neither the
> wit nor the ethics to check publicly available information prior to
> making derogatory comments.
> 

My comments are not derogatory (unless you mean that one should not point out that 
the emperor has no clothes).  This is an offensive suggestion especially from one in 
your position. I thought that the whole idea was that one could ask questions here if one 
didn't know. If a participant in the regime which you have created has queries  then it is 
your duty to answer them properly. It is entirely reasonable to question how someone 
can properly conduct themselves to the benefit of their shareholders and other 
stakeholders when the objects of the two entities must to a certain extent be at odds.

Ausregistry and RegistrarsAsia are not large companies with large numbers of 
employees. One is directly under the control of the other - and they have common 
officers.

The situation is analagous to the roles of an insurance company and an insurance 
broker. The law prevents one from acting as the other. An insurance broker if they own 
an insurer must operate it at arms length and vice versa. I cannot see how the 
circumstances here are any different.

If you have not understood the point I have been trying to make please feel free to ask 
me to explain it more fully.

You do not seem to realise that your little exercise in freeing up the .au domain space 
has produced few perceptable benefits for domain name licencees (eg. new "low low" 
prices do not seem to be passed on by some resellers to end users who are for the 
most part ignorant of the system). It is one thing for resellers to benefit from lower 
prices and thus higher margins but the licencees are frequently not having this passed 
on to them at the moment.

cb