Hi David, Actually I can tell you that this issue was raised and discussed during the 2008 Industry Competition Review Panel and as a result one of the recommendations of this Panel was: Recommendation 8: ----------------- The Panel recommends that subject to the introduction of an independent appeals process, auDA should develop with the Australian Internet community a formalised system of penalties for breaches by registrars. Note the reference to an independent appeals process in this recommendation. http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/icap-final-report.pdf With Regards, Amin Kroll Managing Director _________________________________________________________ Hostway Corporation | IntaServe W: http://www.hostway.com.au W: http://www.intaserve.com In Confidence and without Prejudice. This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of either Hostway Corporation Pty Ltd or IntaServe Pty Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com§dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com§dotau.org] On Behalf Of David Lye Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 12:58 PM To: dns§dotau.org Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8 Disspain hinted at introducing some sort of cost-effective appeals option where domain owners who have had their names arbitrarily deleted can seek judgement from a third party at an independent hearing of some sort. This was during his talk at TRAFFIC last year. I wonder whether this has progressed or whether it was simply lip service to try and placate the increasingly large number of aggrieved domain owners. Unfortunately I tend to think this is the case and as always, the only way to defend a domain name worth will be to spend thousands in the federal court. Because 99.9% of domains are worth less than this, it's a hopeless recourse. David Lye www.netfleet.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org] > On Behalf Of dns-request§dotau.org > Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 5:00 AM > To: dns§dotau.org > Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8 > > Send DNS mailing list submissions to > dns§dotau.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > dns-request§dotau.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > dns-owner§dotau.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of DNS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Anand Kumria) > 2. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Brenden Cruikshank) > 3. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (info§enigmaticminds.com.au) > 4. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Larry Bloch) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:52:12 +0100 > From: Anand Kumria <wildfire§progsoc.uts.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > <971f65790904220252q677df54fi9927a0c32353ad21§mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote: > > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy > to address > > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a > > domain > > [snip] > > > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The > > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as > the auDRP > > but only in those that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, > > such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar. > > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost > of this, it > > would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding > > some of their questionable projects auDA should instead look at > > directing some of these surplus funds into something more > productive > > such as a Domain Name Ombudsman. > > Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out > problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone > Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc. > > It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a > small number of customers (registrars). > > Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many > decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we > are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of > having an independant ombudsman is not worth it. > > Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance > criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through > standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court? > > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html > > Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall > back on the courts. > > Anand > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:02:07 +1000 > From: Brenden Cruikshank <brenden.cruikshank§spiritconnect.com.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > > <4F2264317949EC4F8DC3715E162EA00F2997AE7D46§wgeeb001.hosted-pr > oducts.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Something is certainly required none the less, be it an > Ombudsman or something else... > > The chaos created last week, plus the current economic > downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§do > tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria > Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the moment) > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote: > > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy > to address > > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a > > domain > > [snip] > > > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The > > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as > the auDRP > > but only in those that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, > > such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar. > > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost > of this, it > > would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding > > some of their questionable projects auDA should instead look at > > directing some of these surplus funds into something more > productive > > such as a Domain Name Ombudsman. > > Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out > problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone > Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc. > > It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a > small number of customers (registrars). > > Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many > decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we > are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of > having an independant ombudsman is not worth it. > > Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance > criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through > standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court? > > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html > > Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall > back on the courts. > > Anand > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:16:48 +1000 > From: info§enigmaticminds.com.au > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > <7C5FD01D-2C1E-46FB-AF57-54B29F65097C§enigmaticminds.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > This is not just limited to registrars but for any person > that is effected by one of auDA's arbitrary decisions - i.e. > anyone with a domain could be effected. As there are over 1M > .au domains registered, the scope is quite large. > > I would estimate that hundreds, if not thousands, of domains > are subject to auDA's arbitrary decisions each year, with no > recourse for the people affected unless they have the time > and money to take it through the courts. In most cases it's > just not worth it and so they do nothing about it. Hence the > need for an option such as an ombudsman to balance out the > unfettered power of auDA. > > I know of one organisation that had registered many hundreds > of domains and was using them in accordance with auDA's > policies, until one day auDA decided to use their arbitrary > power to delete them all. > It cost the registrant many tens-of-thousands of dollars to > fight this issue and they eventually got to keep the domains. > > If you speak to those high-up in the various registrars, they > could tell you story after story of such arbitrary decisions > by auDA, even decisions which appear completely contradictory. > > Something needs to be done. > > > On 22/04/2009, at 7:52 PM, Anand Kumria wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, > <info§enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote: > >> Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy > to address > >> disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a > >> domain > > > > [snip] > > > >> provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The > >> ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as > the auDRP > >> but only in those that have arisen because of a decision > auDA made, > >> such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar. > >> auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost > of this, > >> it would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than > >> funding some of their questionable projects auDA should > instead look > >> at directing some of these surplus funds into something more > >> productive such as a Domain Name Ombudsman. > > > > Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point > out problems > > they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone Industry > Ombudsman, > > the Banking Ombudsman, etc. > > > > It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a small > > number of customers (registrars). > > > > Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many decisions does > > auDA make per year which are contested? If we are talking > one or two, > > then I suspect that the cost of having an independant > ombudsman is not > > worth it. > > > > Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar > acceptance criteria > > to specify that both parties in a dispute go through standard > > mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court? > > > > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html > > > > Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall > back on the > > courts. > > > > Anand > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:25:17 +1000 > From: "Larry Bloch" <larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: <000f01c9c33d$0409c3e0$0c1d4ba0$§bloch§netregistry.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi All, > > There is definitely a need for auDA to be accountable to the > community it regulates. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, > and the Bottle affair is clear evidence of that corruption. > > The Board is unfortunately a rubber stamp (I served on it for > years in two stints - I should know) and is captive to > interests that are entirely unaccountable to the community. > > In the end, what this affair sadly demonstrates is that if > the structure is such that the regulator has absolute power > (as in many ways it must) it is perhaps better for it to be a > Government body, because at least then I is in some way > accountable to the electorate and the sensitivities of > politicians to exactly this sort of scandal. > > Whilst the auDA Board may be immune to the feelings expressed > around this issue, Pollies definitely aren't. > > Regards, > > Larry Bloch | CEO | Online Growth Solutions Ltd > > Netregistry | PlanetDomain | NETT Magazine | Hostess > > Direct: 02 9641 8636 > Mobile: 0411 545 118 > Personal Fax: 02 80790741 > Email: larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au > > > T +61 2 9699 6099 | F +61 2 9699 6088| > http://www.netregistry.com.au PO Box 270 Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia > > Domain Names | Email Solutions | Web Hosting | Dedicated > Hosting | eCommerce > | Online Marketing > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org] > On Behalf Of Brenden Cruikshank > Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:02 > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the > moment) > > Something is certainly required none the less, be it an > Ombudsman or something else... > > The chaos created last week, plus the current economic > downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§do > tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria > Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the > moment) > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote: > > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy > to address > > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a > > domain > > [snip] > > > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The > > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as > the auDRP > > but only in > those > > that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, such as deleting a > domain > > or terminating a registrar. > > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost > of this, it > would > > equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than > funding some of > their > > questionable projects auDA should instead look at directing some of > > these surplus funds into something more productive such as a Domain > > Name Ombudsman. > > Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out > problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone > Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc. > > It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a > small number of customers (registrars). > > Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many > decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we > are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of > having an independant ombudsman is not worth it. > > Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance > criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through > standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court? > > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html > > Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall > back on the courts. > > Anand > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DNS mailing list > DNS§dotau.org > http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns > > > End of DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8 > ********************************** > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/Received on Thu Apr 23 2009 - 23:52:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:10 UTC