Sorry, typo:
	
	Whether Bottle's actions warrant de-accreditation IS not  what the court determined.


Regards,

Larry Bloch 

Direct: ???????????? (02) 9934-0536
Mobile: ?????????? (0411) 545-118
Personal Fax: ? (02)? 8079-0741


-----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 Larry Bloch
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 10:44 AM
To: Kim Davies
Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

...and Kim, we (as in Netregistry) have been threatened with de-accreditation a number of times by auDA over matters that didn't warrant it. Silly, trivial procedural things that are obviously going to be resolved without waving the "big stick". As a matter of style, I personally feel you wave the big stick only at moment before you strike, not as a threat to enforce compliance. That's called a bullying autocracy.

Whether Bottle's actions warrant de-accreditation or not is what the court determined. They determined that auDA had both the right and acted in good faith in doing so. They did not find that de-accreditation was the appropriate action (as compared to a financial penalty, or enforced training or a gulag-style labor camp).

I have maintained from the start that auDA's actions were reckless and damaged the stability of .au in contravention of auDA's objective as the confusion to registrants (remember them) could have been easily mitigated by having this court action before hooking them into the bunfight. That's the main point here. As it happens, I think a - say - $500k fine would have been a more appropriate penalty - and more in keeping with maintaining stability. A fine would send a strong message, would have resulted in modified behaviour, and would not have damaged an asset and the employment and service it provides.

Moreover, given auDA's reasons for de-accreditation, it is clear the issue they have is with Nick Bolton and the actions he has personally undertaken. So now we have the position that Bottle can't be a registrar because it's run by Nick, yet Domain Central can, despite being run by Nick. That seems a little weird.


Regards,

Larry Bloch 

Direct: ???????????? (02) 9934-0536
Mobile: ?????????? (0411) 545-118
Personal Fax: ? (02)? 8079-0741


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 8:30 AM
To: Larry Bloch
Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Quoting Larry Bloch on Tuesday May 12, 2009:
| 
| I'm on Bottle's side on this because it is bullying tactics, its arbitrary,
| and it could be any one of us next. I'm not standing up for the rights of
| downtrodden registrars, I'm standing for the right of my business to not be
| threatened by de-accreditation (and ensuing oblivion) over a matter that
| doesn't warrant it. I'm pretty bemused as to why I'm the only one. Surely
| you don't want a regulator that destroys businesses and employment with
| little notice for questionable reasons just because it can.

Apparently the Victorian Supreme Court thinks it was warranted.
"[Bottle] demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to the effect of
credit card fraud upon its victims." I am no lawyer but that sounds like
pretty strong language.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/422.html

kim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/