Jason,

I'm sure everyone on this list appreciates your concern and consternation
regarding this name and its circumstances. Brett has articulated that
NetRegistry has acted in good faith at all times, with the intention of
assiduously following our procedures and auDA policy. 

You have discussed one side of a story and there are always two sides, and
all members of this list need to consider what that other side might be to
arrive at a balanced view. It is not impossible that Jason Allen and his
Netrider mates are not the actual owner of the name. 

As I understand it, the other Jason registered the name and at that time,
there was no legal entity other than himself. This may mean that despite who
has used the name since, he remains the valid licensee. Certainly he remains
the authorised registrant contact and we have acted in good faith at his
direction.

Jason Allen did send us a fax, as he has described, but again, I'm not sure
it's a fax we should necessarily have taken at face value. I'm not saying we
shouldn't believe it, just that on the evidence presented to us, it is not
clear-cut that his fax represented the actual licensee of the name.

At the end of the day, fingers can be pointed all over the place, but the
root cause has nothing to do with Registrars not doing their job, but with
individuals and/or companies who do not look after their affairs. It is the
inability of the two parties concerned to agree on who owns the name that is
the cause of the dispute. Both parties claim the name and both parties have
considerable evidence to support their claim. As such, it is a matter for
the regulator to assist the two parties to resolve.

For the record, our client is (and has always been) "Ls1 Owners Club of
Australia", its contact is Jason Fearon, we have been paid using a credit
card in that name, and before this matter arose, we had never heard of Jason
Allen. On what basis should we consider your (Jason Allen's) fax to be the
gospel truth, given our customer contradicts it?

I know you now run the site and therefore feel you 'own' domain name, but
this may in fact not be the case. I'm just raising this as a possibility
before everyone jumps to conclusions. The fact that it is a commercial
entity and shouldn't even be in org.au is of course another issue.

Lastly, Jason, NetRegistry cannot and never does alter the Last Modified
Date. This is something that the Registry does. It would appear that their
procedure for altering Registrant Names lacks the necessary logic to update
this field. No doubt because it is a manual process. If you feel this is an
issue (and I do) you may want to raise it with auDA and AusRegistry.


Regards

Larry Bloch
Chief Executive Officer
NetRegistry Pty Ltd
______________________________________________
       http://www.netregistry.com.au
Tel:  02 9699 6099          Fax:  02 9699 6088
PO Box 270    Broadway      NSW 2007 Australia 

Domains |Business Email|Web Hosting|E-Commerce 
Trusted  by  10,000s of  businesses since 1997 
______________________________________________ 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Allen [mailto:jallen§pobox.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2005 9:47
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Re: NETREGISTRY - Re your fax regarding 
> netrider.org.au
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, March 31, 2005 9:06 am, Brett Fenton said:
> 
> > Irrespectively the registrant contact on the name requested 
> that the 
> > Registrant be modified to reflect the current legal entity. We 
> > complied with this request.
> 
> And how did NetRegistry determine that LS1 was the correct 
> legal entity? Why is NetRegistry now making a determination 
> on who is the legal registrant of a domain name, when it has 
> previously clearly stated it will not.
> 
> Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au 
> at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ clearly 
> outlines that it cannot be. It seems that NetRegistry clearly 
> does not follow auDA policy when determining .org.au elligibility?
> 
> It's becomes more questionable when this registrant change 
> was made after NetRegistry was notified by fax from Netrider 
> (at the suggesstion of auDA) to update the domain record with 
> the correct legal entity.
> 
> Now that NetRegistry has admitted it did make the domain 
> record change, that it did not update the Last Modified date 
> when it did so, and that the change is registrant field is 
> against Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on 
> .org.au at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/
> will NetRegistry return the registrant and registrantID field 
> on the domain back to what it was until this matter is resolved?
> 
> > The fact you've had a falling out with your mate while unfortunate 
> > doesn't preclude us from taking instructions from the authorized 
> > contact on the domain
> 
> NetRegistry's Sales Manager was specifically advised via 
> responding email yesterday afternoon, that the contact name 
> had no authority from Netrider to make any change and that 
> any claim by the contact name to represent Netrider was false 
> and fraudulent.
> 
> Yet, NetRegistry still allowed a change to the registrant 
> record that is against Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the 
> auDA policy on .org.au at 
> http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ to this contact 
> names company.
> 
> > especially when in the first instance the name did not appear to be 
> > registered to a true legal entity, which is either a person or a 
> > registered business with an ABN or ACN.
> 
> That information was provided via fax to NetRegistry 
> yesterday afternoon at 16:26. If there was any doubts, full 
> contact details were given to clarify it.
> 
> > In the same way we modified the Registrant to be compliant
> 
> You did not. Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy 
> on .org.au at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ 
> clearly outlines that the registrant change that NetRegistry 
> made is incorrect.
> 
> > With regards to the 'problem' of the last modified date not 
> changing 
> > this is not a problem with NR. I'm not aware of an EPP 
> process where 
> > we can make remote calls to the Registry to modify the Registrant. 
> > This can only be done by manually processing the request through 
> > AusRegistry support.
> 
> Clearly any change to a domain record that does not update 
> the Last Modified field on the domain record contravene's 
> auDA policy. I'm astounded that you think otherwise and think 
> that not doing so is acceptable.
> 
> > This is what happened yesterday afternoon (without me being 
> aware of 
> > it). AusRegistry staff then modify the Registrant of the domain.
> 
> In contravention of .org.au elligibility rules at Section F, 
> subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Jason
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ 
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without 
> permission of the 
> author, further information at the above URL.
> 
>