Chris Disspain wrote to DNS list on 25 July 2003: > Ian, > > With respect, I do not agree with your analysis but do thank you for > raising the issue which is an important one. > > " If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, > inappropriate market behaviour should, by and large, cease." > > It has, by and large, ceased. Chris, I'm pleased to see make this latter point. Thank you for the clarification and, for me, greater transparency. It would be comforting if the ACCC were to make a similar statement. Could the issue of market behaviour/conduct, and auDA's regulatory and co-regulatory objectives, strategies and outcomes be addressed in CEO’s 2002/2003 Report to auDA's members? > In the last 12 months the only major > problems have been with companies 'outside' the industry (ie not > registrars or resellers) and have involved the same group of people. I acknowledge that the major problems have been with companies 'outside' the auDA regulated industry. However, I question whether consumers/registrants see it that way. They may not appreciate the lack of auDA control over non-.au domains. I would argue that the persistent inappropriate conduct of companies - 'outside' and 'inside' the industry, causing major and minor problems - has been perceived by consumers/registrants to be a persistent problem within the domain name services industry in Australia. Are persistent problems 'inside' the industry systemic? Is it that those breaching policies do not understand them? Is there is a need for education of staff of registrars and resellers and/or rewriting policy in plain English? > I am not suggesting that the current situation with DNA is either > satisfactory or acceptable. It is not and it is being dealt with. Your view, and assurance that the current situation is being dealt with, is welcomed news to me and SETEL <www.setel.com.au>. > auDA does not rush to the DNS list or media flagging the action we are > taking in response to 'scams'. It would be inappropriate for us to do > so. However, we do (often in consultation with ACCC) take action as has > been evidenced by the successful proceedings against IRA (taken by ACCC) > and ING and NetRegister/Rafferty (taken by auDA). Your explanation is appreciated, as were actions and outcomes achieved by auDA and the ACCC in these matters. I acknowledge that there are circumstances where auDA and/or the ACCC does not publicise actions being taken until that is appropriate. SETEL lacks the mechanisms to learn of these activities and consequential outcomes at an early date, other than through auDA and perhaps the ACCC. I assume that auDA publicises its action at the earliest possible stage. This is important from the perspective of SETEL, as a channel of communication to its member associations with membership of over 600,000 small businesses. auDA Consumer Alerts are promptly communicated to SETEL members <www.setel.com.au/membership/members>. > I think it is important to understand the meaning of the words being > used so that we can be clear what we are discussing in this debate. > > You use the word 'industry' in several places in your email below. What > do you mean by this? Do you mean those dealing with domain names in > .au or those dealing with domain names generally? There is an important > distinction here. For example, you will be aware that the vast majority > of the DNA mail out is offering names in the gTLD spaces not in .au. I intended to use the word 'industry' to mean businesses in Australia offering and/or supplying domain name services to the public - that is, generally. A notice of 30 July 2003 from DNA to SETEL requested payment of $273.00 inc GST for the domain: setel.net.au. The date of the notice was just before the renewal date for setel.com.au. I did not know that the *vast majority* of the DNA mail out was offering names in the gTLD spaces not in .au. I understand that these mail-outs were sent to .au registrants and made a connection between their .au domain names and the gTLD domain names offered. Another possible confusion for registrants and their employees. We note the targeting practice apparently around .au domain name registrants and the lack of awareness by consumers/registrants of the different regulatory arrangements for .au names and gTLD domain names. > You say " Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, > ineffective - too cumbersome, slow, costly". Could you please clarify > what frameworks you are referring to? I was referring to auDA's contract-based regulatory framework (Registrar Agreement, auDA Domain Name Suppliers' Code of Practice, auDA published policies), the Trade Practices Act, the State/Territory fair trading laws and other laws of the Commonwealth, States and Territories that may deal with inappropriate behaviour/conduct, e.g. Privacy Act. In view of your advice that inappropriate market behaviour has by and large ceased (for the time being), I am willing to concede that the auDA framework has not been ineffective as I concluded. However, I still have some concerns about the effectiveness of the frameworks in view of the following indications. Questions arise in my mind about whether the frameworks need to be strengthened to make them more effective, to deter persistent breaches of one form or another. Indications that led me to conclude that "... the frameworks are, in part, ineffective ...., included: - A significant number of items in the News Archive <www.auda.org.au/about/news/> which chronicle questionable behaviour/conduct; - Reference in the auDA Board minutes of October 2002 " ... monthly income received from the auDA Domain Name Fee (implemented on 1 July) is currently running over-budget, however this is offset to some extent by the increased legal costs incurred by auDA with respect to the action against Internet Registry." <www.auda.org.au/about/minutes/board-200210.html>. - Discussions of auDA Panels and CoP Drafting Committee during 2000-2002 (of which I was a member). - DNS list discussions about market behaviour/conduct. - Limitations of the auDA framework, the Trade Practices Act and other Australian law in dealing with 'inappropriate' market behaviour/conduct, e.g limitations on imposition of financial penalties for breach of auDA's published policy and/or Registrar Agreement. > You refer to desired outcomes not being achieved according to some > community standards. What are the desired outcomes and what are the > community standards to which you refer? I said: Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, ineffective - too cumbersome, slow, costly ... That is, they are not achieving desired outcomes, according to some community standards. That's what I hear many in the industry saying, and that's what I observe. I see 'community standards' as setting points of reference against which behaviour/conduct of domain name suppliers generally should be judged. They are reflected and embodied in the current multiplicity of regulatory frameworks applying to suppliers. Hopefully, they will evolve in response to discussion within the Internet community, the Code of Practice Committee, future Panels, legal precedent, technological change and new services. Desired outcomes are about meeting these 'community standards' within a fair and competitive market; a market which encourages the economically efficient use of, and economically efficient investment in, the infrastructure used for the supply of domain name service in Australia generally. > You refer to ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms. > Which of the deterrent and enforcement mechanisms do you > believe to be ineffective? I said: "Ultimately consumers of domain name services meet the cost of market and (any) regulatory failure. Ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms impose costs on auDA, ACCC, bona fide industry players and consumers. Consumers and taxpayers fund these mechanisms." I did not form a firm view that these mechanisms were ineffective. I noted consequences of ineffective mechanisms. Some mechanisms have been effective deterrents to inappropriate behaviour/conduct (e.g. suspension or termination of auDA accreditation). I'm not in a position to say which, if any, mechanisms are ineffective, or might be more effective. I do not have facts that would enable me to reach such conclusions. They are within auDA's and ACCC's domain. (They may also be within the domain of any independent body that might review/evaluate the effectiveness of the frameworks regulating domain name services.) But, if the mechanisms were fully effective, there should have been insignificant costs (including opportunity costs) incurred by auDA, ACCC, industry participants and consumers/registrants. It appears that the costs incurred as a consequence of inappropriate behaviour/conduct have *not* been insignificant. Indications are that the ACCC, auDA and legal counsel have incurred not insignificant costs investigating, preparing for and taking action against those alleged to have been in breach of their respective regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, there appears to have been costs imposed on the domain name services industry, including bona fide competitive suppliers. There has been confusion and unnecessary costs to consumers/registrants of domain name services. How significant the costs have been to auDA, ACCC, registrars, resellers and registrants is unknown to me. auDA and ACCC should be in a position to estimate the cost involved; for example, on an avoidable cost basis. > I look forward to your response so that I may more properly answer the > questions you are raising. > > Best Regards, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > ceo§auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au Related matter It seems to me that the national and international reputation of the Australian domain name services industry (broadly defined), will depend on having regulatory frameworks and actions that are harmonised and effective. Your assurances that auDA is working closely with the ACCC is welcomed news. Your response to the DNS list has gone a long way to clarifying and aleviating some key concerns for me. Thank you Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL) SETEL is a national small business consumer association advancing the interest of Australian small business as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au] > Sent: Friday, 25 July 2003 9:43 AM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Cc: jon§jonlawrence.com > Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. > > Kim, your not heading off on a tangent as I see it - you're spot on. > > I was about the post the following, in response to Jon Lawrence and > Skeeve Stevens (see their emails below), when I saw your email. > > -- > > The following comments and opinions are put forward with a view to > advancing debate - I'm not wedded to them. > > If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, > inappropriate market behaviour should, by and large, cease. > > Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, ineffective - too > cumbersome, slow, costly ... That is, they are not achieving desired > outcomes, according to some community standards. That's what I > hear many in the industry saying, and that's what I observe. > > Ultimately consumers of domain name services meet the cost of market > and (any) regulatory failure. Ineffective deterrent and enforcement > mechanisms impose costs on auDA, ACCC, bona fide industry players > and consumers. Consumers and taxpayers fund these mechanisms. > > With continuing market and regulatory failure - including failure due to > the limitations of the regulatory framework(s) - the case for further > government intervention seems compelling, unless the domain name > industry /co-regulators can demonstrate that they can effectively deal > with inappropriate market behaviour. > > I'm tending to the view that national legislation is probably required. > For example, consideration might be given to addressing issues in the > context of the (electronic) spam legislation announced yesterday by the > Minister for Communications, Information Technolgy and the Arts > <http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_15-4_115938,00.html>. > > A case could be made for the legislation to also deal with > non-electronic spam relating to domain names. Indeed, the case can > be made for the legislation to address the domain name industry's and > consumers' concerns. > > I'm away from email till much later today. > > Ian > > > -- > Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant > Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL) > www.setel.com.au mailto:ian.johnston§setel.com.au > 02 6251 7848 (B) 02 6251 7835 (F) 0413 990 112 (M) > > SETEL is a national small business consumer association > advancing the interest of Australian small business > as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:jon§jonlawrence.com] > > Sent: 24 July 2003 7:56 PM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > > > > If they're registering the names as a retail client, how do you identify > > the order as coming from DNA? Block their email address? They'll just > > use a different one. Block their IP address? Ditto. > > > > It's my understanding that the appropriate manner in which to deal with > > issues such as this where the party involved is operating outside of > > a contractual relationship with auDA is under the relevant provisions of > > the Trade Practices Act, and/or state-based trading standards legislation. > > I believe that auDA is already pursuing this matter in conjunction with > > the ACCC. > > > > jon > > > > >-- Original Message -- > > >Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > >From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve§skeeve.org> > > >To: <dns§lists.auda.org.au> > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:31:35 +1000 > > >Subject: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > > > >Ok. Am I completely on the wrong track here. or isn't it quite easy to > > >stop people like Domain Names Australia. > > > > > >When something happens like their current campaign, auDA should issue > > >an order to all current registrars, including AusRegistry, to not accept > > >any more domain applications from DNA. > > > > > >That way, any money they do collect, is simply classified as fraud, > > >since they haven't actually provided a service (i.e. Domain Name). > > > > > >Maybe auDA needs to update policies and their registrar agreements, > > >so that they can issue a 'Block' when someone launches a campaign > > >like this. > > > > > >Is this on the right track? > > > > > >If you block their ability to register domains. then they are simply out > > >of business.. How easy is that? > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ > > >Skeeve Stevens, RHCE Email: skeeve§skeeve.org > > >Website: www.skeeve.org - Telephone: (0414) 753 383 > > >Address: P.O Box 1035, Epping, NSW, 1710, Australia > > > > > >eIntellego - skeeve§eintellego.net - www.eintellego.net > > >_______________________________________________________ > > >Si vis pacem, para bellum > > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > > > > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. > > > > I haven't been following recent spam developments in Australia lately, > > but the flurry of articles in the media has been hard to miss... > > > > One article that caught my eye was at > > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=589997653&fp=16&fpid=0 > > which reads in part: > > > > Notably, the legislation also contains major concessions to > > the direct marketing industry, who will be allowed to continue > > to harvest Australian e-mail addresses on .com.au sites on the > > Internet, essentially for the purpose of business to business > > marketing. > > > > Is this true? Surely this represents a fundamental loophole and > > misunderstanding of the role of second level domains. > > > > Having an email address end in .com.au does not at all signify that the > > > users of that domain are commercial enterprises. On the contrary, many > > (most?) ISPs in Australia hand out email addresses under this 2LD to all > > their customers. > > > > Secondly, such practice seemingly legitimises spamming .com.au domain > > holders for the purposes of domain name renewal. > > > > I sincerely hope this is either an oversimplification or the author got > > it wrong. I'd hate to see .com.au die off because it became some > > legitimated spammer refuge. > > > > kim ... snip ...Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC