Chesley,

What business is it of yours if Explorer or ProWeb have breached policy? 
Are you saying you have some sort of common interest?

Both Explorer and Proweb HAVE breached auDA policy, there is no doubt 
about that, they have, at the very least, registered a number of domains 
that are not within the appropriate policy by having invalid registrant 
details.

Joshua can start his list of registrars that have specifically refused 
to deal with you by listing Enetica.

Bennett.


Brad Norrish wrote:

> 
> Brad 
> 
> Can you help me out, it seems I am unable to post to the DNS List even though I am subscribed. 
> 
> Could you see if you could post this email on my behalf?
> 
> Chesley
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Internet Registry 
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:31 AM
> Subject: Josh Rowe + Sanctum = a lot of spare time!
> 
> 
> Josh josh josh!
> 
> You must be a very lonely person to spend so much time
> trying to find what other people are up to.
> 
> Lets start with the simple stuff, clearly you are
> getting access to the same brilliant facts as auDA, my
> name is Chesley Paul Rafferty. You could use Baycorp
> or look at information auDA has which clearly shows my
> correct name or would you prefer that I called you
> Luke Joshua Rowe.
> 
> Let's have a look at a few more facts, which as an
> auDA director (and someone who consistently seems to
> nitpick everything everyone else does) I'm suprised
> that you don't know.
> 
> Here's a simple one for you to start with. Please
> point out anything that Explorer and Proweb Solutions
> have done that are in breach of auDA policy. 
> 
> Also Josh please also confirm that according to you
> that with the "...looming court appearance..." that I
> had to register 2000 domains - are you suggesting that
> I didnt intend to register those domain names, if so
> please state so as I will have my lawyers prepare
> documents to sue you for defamation.
> 
> While you there, can you please clarify that when you
> state "Explorer Domains took the option of registering
> approximately 2000
> .net.au domains, which is more than double the volume
> they achieved for
> their first year
> (http://www.auda.org.au/docs/ausregistry-y1-0203.pdf).
> AusRegistry (http://www.ausregistry.com.au/) requires
> prepayment for
> domain names before being able to accept an order, so
> with a $100,000
> prepayment Explorer Domains would have done this with
> full knowledge of
> where the business was coming from.  " that you are
> stating that Explorer and Ausregistry are in breach of
> auDA policy, because I'm sure that they would be very
> interested to hear that coming from you.
> 
> Also in that statement, also please detail which 10 or
> more registrars knocked back Domain Names Australia
> have told you that they didnt want to deal with my
> company.
> 
> OK ... while you rush to your file of auDA policy -
> I'll play you for awhile.
> 
> Ok how would I best play you - hmmmm... i know I'll
> point out everything that you are doing in breach of
> auDA policy. What!!!! Hold the press the holy Joshua
> Rowe, the highest of the high AND a DIRECTOR of auDA -
> surely there could be no way that you could EVER
> breach policy that you helped create and endorse as
> part of the board of auDA!
> 
> 
> Well find below folks,the horrifying depth's of
> Joshua's blantant abuse of auDA 
> policy - worst of all it's the .au Domain Name
> Suppliers' Code of Practice 
> 
> sanctum - "A sacred or holy place." 
> 
> sanctimonious - "Making a show of sanctity; affecting
> saintliness; 
> hypocritically devout or pious." 
> 
> Hmmm, is it possible Josh that you confused the word
> you wanted. 
> 
> The following people are the elected Directors on the
> Board of auDA: 
> "Name (Organisation) Representing Elected Retires 
> ...Joshua Rowe Demand 26 Nov 2001 2003 AGM..." 
> 
> The auDA Board formally endorsed the Code on 10
> September 2002. 
> 
> So Josh had been a director for almost a year when he
> endorsed the Code of Practice. 
> 
> 2.1 Compliance with the Code of Practice is mandatory
> for all auDA accredited registrars and their appointed
> resellers. A list of registrars and resellers is 
> available on the auDA website at
> http://www.auda.org.au/registrars 
> 
> http://www.auda.org.au/cgi-bin/reseller-search?query=sanctum+internet
> 
> 
> Search Results - 1 reseller(s) found 
> Reseller Registrar(s) 
> Sanctum Internet Pty Ltd Enetica 
> Last updated: Mon Sep 1 14:28:27 2003 
> 
> Now as we have a look at
> https://secure.sanctum.com.au/staff.htm: 
> 
> Joshua Rowe 
> B.App.Sci. (Comp Sci) 
> Director 
> 
> Alternatively go to http://www.josh.id.au/ and find
> Joshua Rowe - Director, 
> Sanctum Internet Pty Ltd 
> 
> Let's leap into the Code down to section: 
> 10.1 Domain Name Suppliers must fully disclose to a
> registrant the following minimum level of information:
> 
> 
> b) Identity of the accredited Registrar being used by
> the Domain Name Supplier if the Domain Name 
> Supplier is NOT an accredited registrar including: 
> (i) the trading name shown in the auDA list of
> Registrars; 
> (ii) contact information for the registrar including
> telephone number in 
> office hours, facsimile 
> number, website address and email address; 
> (iii) address of registered office of principal place
> of business; 
> c) terms and conditions of the domain name licence;
> and 
> d) processing time for domain name registrations,
> customer support contact 
> information and web address link to this code of
> practice. 
> 
> JOSH - WHERE IS THIS INFORMATION? AS I KNOW HOW
> DEDICATED YOU ARE TO KEEPING THE INTEGRITY OF AUDA
> POLICY, SURELY THESE 6 AREA'S THAT YOU HAVE MISSED ARE
> 
> JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON YOUR BEHALF OR MAYBE IT IS THAT
> YOU HAVE BEEN SO BUSY ON THIS LIST THAT YOU HAVENT HAD
> A CHANCE TO UPDATE YOUR SITE IN THE LAST YEAR SINCE
> YOU AND THE REST OF THE BOARD ENDORSED THIS POLICY? 
> 
> Sorry I've just realised I made an error - Sanctum
> does have terms and conditions at: 
> 
> You just follow the registration and get to 
> https://secure.sanctum.com.au/cgi-bin/register.cgi 
> 
> Which says 
> "I have read and accept the terms and conditions
> associated with domain 
> registration and related services, and warrant that
> the above information is 
> true and correct" 
> 
> This provides a link to :
> https://secure.sanctum.com.au/tc.html 
> 
> Which provides you with the following terms and
> conditions: 
> 
> "these are the terms & conditions " 
> 
> ** Stop looking for the rest of the terms and
> conditions - this is all that Sanctum provides ** 
> 
> BUT THEN IT GETS WORSE - IT STILL KEEPS GETTING WORSE!
> 
> 
> 12.1 Domain Name Suppliers must: 
> b) publish and observe a written complaints handling
> process which is available to all registrants at 
> no charge; 
> c) provide a web address to auDA for Consumer
> information, including Consumer Guide and FAQ; 
> 15.2 Visibility and Accessibility 
> a) Domain Name Suppliers' Complaint handling processes
> must: 
> (i) be publicised to Customers and staff; 
> (ii) include information to Customers about their
> right to complain; and 
> (iii) specify how the Domain Name Supplier can be
> contacted in order to make a Complaint. 
> 
> JOSH - HELP ME OUT!! IVE BEEN LOOKING ALL OVER YOUR
> SITE BUT I STILL CANT 
> FIND THIS COMPLAINT POLICY? THAT IS SO STRANGE BECAUSE
> AS A DIRECTOR OFF AUDA 
> (AS YOU SO CLEARLY DISPLAY AT JOSH.ID.AU) WOULD NEVER
> DELIBERATELY LEAVE OFF 
> THESE KIND OF DETAILS? 
> 
> PLEASE CAN YOU SORT OUT YOUR WEBSITE AS I AM SO
> WORRIED ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF NEWS OF THIS GOT
> OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT COULD DEVASTATE 
> YOUR CHANCES OF RE-ELECTION AT THIS YEARS AGM! 
> 
> ALSO TO HELP CLEAR UP YOUR GOOD NAME, YOU SHOULD
> CLARIFY YOUR POSITION TO YOUR FELLOW DNS FRIENDS BY
> ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 
> 
> DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR SANCTUM DOESN'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY
> AUDA POLICY? 
> OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND AUDA POLICY? 
> 
> Josh i have seen the same stream of information come
> from you for 2 years, most of it repetitive, like
> you're trying to impress the next group of DNS
> members, and I think I've only bothered to waste my
> time once or twice before to write on this list. 
> 
> However, I will still be speaking to my lawyers today to consider what possible legal I can take against you personally. You see I can get good economy's of scale with my lawyers.
> 
> I would also be happy for anyone who would like to
> consider being a part of a representative class action
> against Josh (pending legal advice), to get in contact
> with me.
> 
> Josh if you are lonely or need someone to talk to,
> please feel free to call me, you seem to have all my
> numbers anyway or send me a email and Ill give you a
> call, or I could even drop round and say hello at some
> stage.
> 
> Your obsession
> 
> Chesley
> 
> 
> PS John Thomson. Yes you should not piss Josh off. He is very scary the way that he can do Whois look ups! I'm personally amazed most of us can sleep at night! More importantly how much terror would he cause if he started doing more Google searches. THE HORROR!!
>