Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Confidential communication

Section 80 of the Trade Practices Act allows any person to apply for an
injunction to restrain a corporation from engaging in misleading or
deceptive conduct.  The High Court recently upheld the constitutionality
of this provision in the Truth About Motorways case (see
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2000/11.html) in which a
special-purpose action group claimed that statements in a prospectus
issued to seek investments in a toll road were misleading.  The action
group suffered no damage as a result of the allegedly misleading
statements, but was allowed to pursue the case.

Of course it can be an expensive business to take this kind of action.
But it is open to any person, including auDA and competitors of persons
who are engaging in practices of this kind, to do so.

Patrick Gunning
Senior Associate
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Sydney
Direct line (61 2) 9296 2170
Fax (61 2) 9296 3999


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo§auda.org.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2001 1:10 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Cc: Rowan Groves
Subject: RE: [DNS] NEW Scam...deceptive faxes from Internet Name
Protection


As most of you will be aware, auDA has issued 2 consumer alerts covering
practices like this. They are both available on our web site.

At the moment, re-sellers (of which Internet Name Protection is one) are
governed solely by their contract with Melbourne IT. The only body that
can,
at present, do anything about these practices from a legal point of view
is
the ACCC.  Whilst auDA is the delegate for .com.au, that delegation is,
until later this year subject to an agreement between the previous
delegate
(Robert Elz) and Melbourne IT. Whilst auDA can, and has, put pressure on
Melbourne IT to do something, we cannot force them to do so. The same
applies to the ACCC.

Of course, all of this will change once auDA is the .au delegate and
implements the changes to the industry pursuant to the recommendations
of
the Name Panel and Competition Panel. At that stage all registrars and
re-sellers will be required to abide by a Code of Conduct. That Code of
Conduct is one of the many matters auDA will complete in the run up to
the
introduction of competition.

In the meantime, all we can do is to attempt to educate the public about
domain names and some of the practices that occur. I have suggested in
the
past that one way the industry could assist is for domain name
re-sellers to
email our consumer alerts to their customer database. Melbourne IT has
done
this and I strongly suggest that other follow suit.

Regards

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
ceo§auda.org.au
+61-3-9226-9495
www.auda.org.au


-----Original Message-----
From: Wilkins, David [mailto:wilkind§anz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2001 11:40
To: 'dns§auda.org.au'
Subject: RE: [DNS] NEW Scam...deceptive faxes from Internet Name
Protection

I know I have had this discussion with INA but surely as a business
partner
of INA they can apply pressure for reasonable conduct.. This company
continues to set new lows..

Is it worthwhile for auDA to set a code of practice or some sort of
framework that doesn't encourage these business practices? It seems the
current vacuum is being interpreted as anything goes.

I do believe this is one of the cases where auDA could easily create
value
with the framework and demonstrate a willingness to see professional
conduct
in the administration of the .com.au domain before acquiring
administration
of .au

David L. Wilkins

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wenzler [mailto:paul§thedotcom.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:22
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: [DNS] NEW Scam...deceptive faxes from Internet Name Protection


I have just recieved a phone call from a client who was most conserned
that
his domain was not currently registered.

As it turned out, he revieved a fax from "Internet Name Protection" of
Level
1, 222 St Kilda Road St. Kilda Vic 3182, stating that the domain
www.domainnamewithheld.com is unregistered!!! (exclamation marks
theirs).

The fax states that they should secure the name immediately for 2 years
§
$250 4years § $500 etc up to 10 years @$1000.

No where does it mention what the client currently owns
www.domainnamewitheld.com.au  and that www.domainnamewithheld.com is a
seperate issue.

I thing this is unfare scare tactics and a pricing structure which is
exorbatant to catch the unwary.

If anyone is interested in viewing the fax I can fax it to them.

Paul Wenzler
theDOTcom


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 359 subscribers.
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 359 subscribers.
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 359 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.