Hello Ron,

Yesterday a public meeting was held under the auspices of auDA to discuss
the Registry Technical Specification at the offices of Maddock Lonie &
Chisholm.

I found this to be a very useful exercise, and many constructive comments
were made.
In expect that a summary of this meeting will appear on the auDA website
soon.

I checked to see if that venue could be used for your meeting, but it is not
available unless auDA specifically call for a public meeting.

If you are looking for a venue for a meeting, Melbourne IT can make
available its meeting room at 120 King St and we can arrange for a
conference bridge for those interstate, but you may want to find a more
neutral location.  Perhaps another member of the list can offer a meeting
location.

On the timing of the various documents, I think it would be worth auDA doing
a critical path analysis.  The Registry Technical Spec is important for
putting out the tender for the registry or registries and is thus on the
critical path, and I can understand the need for a tight timeframe for
public comment.

The registrars accreditation and licence agreement and code of conduct does
not appear to be on the critical path - as the new system will not be ready
until 1 Jan 2001 by auDA's public announced target date.  I see no reason
why more time could not be allowed for public comment on these very
important documents.  Note once the registrar licence agreement and
accreditation process is finalised, auDA has stated that the agreements are
"non-negotiable".  Thus it is very important to voice any concerns you have
now.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§businesspark.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: dns§auda.org.au
> Subject: [DNS] Urgent Call for public meeting
> 
> 
> As an auDA member (yet to be ratified) I have to say that 
> we're NOT HAPPY
> with what's being rushed through by auDA, for whatever 
> reason.  And I think
> that we're probably typical of a whole swag of domain name 
> resellers out
> there, who should be fearful for their businesses if our concerns are
> anything to go by.  Some examples:
> 
> *	We have only 2 days in which to comment on the complex draft
> registrar agreement, but NO opportunity to discuss concerns 
> we have.  We,
> for one, received no notification of its release.  This is 
> inexcusably short
> for such a crucial issue that will directly affect us all.
> *	Any auDA impositions on their registrars are foisted on us
> resellers, yet we've had no input into their composition or content.
> *	There is NO obligation on auDA to develop or publish a Code of
> Practice.
> *	What references there are to any Code of Practice make 
> no measurable
> or enforceable provision for recourse or punitive action in 
> the event of
> non-compliance.
> *	The issue of SPAM is inadequately addressed
> *	There is no obligation on registrars to resolve (only to
> investigate) or act on complaints from us or our collective clients
> *	No criteria are given whereby reseller agreements can 
> be terminated
> - only a directive from auDA.  Hair colour, perhaps?  We 
> resellers have no
> recourse or appeal mechanism.
> *	auDa acknowledges that it acts "for the benefit of the 
> Australian
> public", yet their actions and indecent haste are excluding 
> imput by that
> very public they purport to serve.
> *	There are no provisions to protect registrars, we resellers or
> registrants (our customers) against vested interests or 
> conflict of interest
> by auDA officials and/or auDA service providers.
> *	Where is the transparancy of process that an 
> organisation owes, and
> is obligated to provide, its members? 
> 
> Our concerns are considerably heightened by recent (and not so recent)
> examples of abuse and predatory business practice of which 
> several members
> complained, but against which auDA and Melbourne IT were apparently
> powerless to act.  By the way, we are STILL waiting on auDA's 
> reponse to our
> specific question in this reard.
> 
> We see nothing in the draft agreement that will improve our 
> already weak
> situation - indeed, we see our collective ability for 
> recourse against shady
> business practice, and abuse of improperly obtained information, being
> weakened still further.
> 
> We are deeply concerned, and I would like to call a public 
> meeting to be
> held in the next 48 hours (say 10h00 Friday), to get these 
> and other issues
> on the table WHILE WE STILL HAVE THE CHANCE.  Let's not emasculate
> ourselves, and our customers, through apathy.
> 
> Your expressions of interest PLEASE.
> 
> 
> Ron Stark
> Business Park Pty Ltd
> mail: ronstark§businesspark.com.au
> tel: +61 (0)3 9592 6895   fax: +61 (0)3 9591 0729
> mob: +61 (0)41 812 9922
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this 
> forum without
> express permission of the author. 316 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. 316 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.