Gee Harry, you are so close.  If you study the practices in a little more
detail you will find that they are reminiscent of the priesthood of the
1500s.  In fact, the restrictive use of words by MelbourneIT in particular
and others generally, fits exactly into that time frame - circa 1500s.
There is even an a case that, in terms of word power, MelbourneIT and auDA
have turned the clock back 500 years.  The other scarry bit is if you read
the transcript of the Holy Office's decision on Galileo you can replace Holy
Office with MelbourneIT or auDA and it still makes sense and in context.

There are three High Priestesses that wield the power and one must make sure
that you do not even suggest that they could have made even the slightest
error, otherwise thee will feel their wrath.  Their Wisdom is infallible!

I find it interesting that Mr Tonkin prefers to follow the law of the
country to dictatorship.  In my experience, MelbourneIT acts exactly like a
dictatorship and benevolent is not a word that comes to mind when I think of
MelbourneIT.

I don't agree with self-regulation.  The process is not interested in
Australian Soveriegnty at all, it has another agenda.  Identity and property
issues are too important to be left to the whim of a "select group" (sic).
The whole business of identity and property has evolved over time
(centuries) and the people I have dealt with over the years have all
respected that.  The existing process is based on first come first served,
on a set of rules that have similarly evolved.  e.g. If, within the rules,
you were first with a name you got it, if you were first to patent an idea
you got it, etc.  However, the internet community comes along and says that
they are going to determine whether or not your names approved under rules
established by Act of Parliamnet can be considered as first in best dressed,
and give it to someone else.  In fact it will enable, for filthy lucre, a
third party to claim domain name entitlement to your name so approved.

Those of us who have been in business before the 90s and thus long before
most of the "internet industry" existed as businesses, will recall the ACN
program that set out to identify and clarify or normalise naming and
indentity issues.  Also, some of us are old enough to remember (maybe that
is the problem - we do remember) that if the Minister of the day had pulled
such a stunt on telegraphic addresses there would have been hell to play.
Again, I make the observation that the internet is nothing more than a desk
to desk telegram service.  In the olden days you could get a bunch of
telegram forms from the post office, write them up and take them to the post
office for transmission.  Alternatively, you could even phone the telegram
service and dictate your telegram for transmission.  In proceess, this is no
different to be able to write your message and electronically despatch it.
The technology is different, but the process is the same.  The issue that is
different to a greater extent is the protection of identity.  It is now a
major problem and will grow even more critical, particularly for small
businesses.  If you don't understand the significance of this issue, then I
suggest you are missing a key point. If you cannot take steps to maximise
the protection of the identity of a business, this process has failed
miserably and with very real consequences.  I believe business is looking
for processes that will protect their true identity.  You might actually
find you can make more money protecting the lawfully approved names and
identities of business than you will scrabbling for loopholes. For
comparison, if someone took your identity how would you feel.

Also, I can imagine the uproar if the White Pages changed its rules for
listing names.

This is not a new industry, and doesn't need all the self-grandiosement and
reveneue chasing nit-picking going on here.  It needs to do as Mr Tonkin
suggested - follow the rules of the country.  In summary these in terms of
names include:

1.  The Paris Convention on names that requires the Commonwealth to protect
names.

2.  Recognise that people have lawfully approved names and should be
entitled to use them (in the days of Moses - Don't covet thy neighobour's
wife).  For those who argue there is no property value in a business name,
explain why the PM & Hockey enacted a Regulation to protect the name of
Bradman?  If there was no value or identity issues in the name Bradman, why
protect it?  Why protect the name Bradman and not any other name?

3.  Recognise that this is about equity and there are Court precedences on
this matter, it is not up to a few folks to do what they think.

Personally speaking, the only way ahead is exactly opposite to your views.
And I believe this to be necessary because the internet industry has put the
established culture totally out of balance.

The Commonwealth in conjunction with the States establish, for want of a
better description, a National Names Agency.  The agency issues all classes
of names (Company, registered, trademarks, patents, etc).  When you are
issued your name it comes complete with your approved domain name, which by
default should be the same name as as approved.  I accept that Parliament
would have to ensure that the necessary Acts and Regulations were in place.
There would also need to be a normalisation to establish a baseline and some
changes may need to be put in place at that time.  Just as in the ACN
program. If this is not done there will be chaos, and the problem will be
more difficult to solve.  You can guess who gets to be richest - the
lawyers - as the likes of auDA and MelbourneIT stand aside and take the
"don't blame me" view.

I think the plot has been lost.  I am probably a minority view in this
forum, but that's life.

Rgds

Adrian

I speak for my self.

===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan§ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan§logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Hoholis [mailto:webmaster§webaccess.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 30 November 2001 13:39 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] The need for a code of practice


Larry!

Fascinating email. I immediatly consulted a friend of mine that
happens to be a secular scholar, asking him how one becomes a saint.
He had a look through some hagiographies (texts on saints) and he
informed that that it looked like you needed to be canonized by
the pope!

That was when the penny dropped.

Here I had been going on about dictators and the like, when all along
I had been committing blasphemy againt the domain registration messiah.
Forgive me father, for I have sinned.

And all you atheists beg for forgiveness and mercy so that you may be
canonicaled by the bloch:

auda.au.com
aunic.au.com
ina.au.com
mit.au.com
ing.au.com
ira.au.com

Harry


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Bloch [mailto:larry.bloch§netregistry.au.com]
Sent: Friday, 30 November 2001 12:58 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] The need for a code of practice


Bruce,

Your comments are all very well, but Melbourne IT has now placed the sort of
restrictions I called for that make a difference well over 12 months after
the practices of these companies started. Only now are Registry Keys
required. A little late, really.

On the one hand, you try to deflect blame from MIT - fair enough. On the
other hand, there ARE clearly measures you can - and now have - taken to
assist.

It may not be fact, but there is a general impression amongst your resellers
that MIT took no action on this issue for so long because as far as MIT is
concerned, these practices are viewed by MIT as effective outsourced revenue
collection.

I prefer to believe that the real reason it has taken so long is lack of
will, rather than proactive acceptance of the practice, but the point is
that in a post competition environment, do you really want all that bad
blood with your channel?

MIT has the relationship with ING/IRA. You left the door open and made
little attempt to close it. Its now pretty wide, and difficult to shut.
Individual action by Joshua/NetRegistry or whoever only occurs because MIT
have not demonstrated leadership here. We all look to MIT to resolve this.
ING/IRA are not going to stop voluntarily.

So yes, I do widen the target to include MIT/auDA/ACCC, and yes, I do make
fairly wild accusations - that's what makes the journo's write about it, but
I would far prefer MIT/auDA to demonstrate some leadership.

How about a Domain Industry Summit to discuss and address issues facing the
industry? How about a round table of ING/IRA/resellers/MIT/auDA. Perhaps it
can all be resolved amicably. Instead action is left to a few lone voices.

How about a little support for NetRegistry's stand? How about a little
public support for Joshua?

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin§melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2001 19:29
To: 'dns§auda.org.au'
Subject: [DNS] The need for a code of practice



>
> Bloch did not limit his attack to those carrying out such
> practices--he also
> targeted Melbourne IT, the auDA and the ACCC for their
> failure to place
> appropriate restrictions on an industry rife with what he describes as
> unethical marketing practices.
>

And while we are at it, how about the parents of the individuals running
such organisations, or the schools that taught them.  I have heard such
arguments before.  We should focus the blame on those that misbehave not on
those associated with them.

While there are many on this list that seem to favour a dictatorship -
benevolent or otherwise, I prefer to operate within the laws of the country.
If action was possible under the Trade Practices Act, it would probably
already have been taken.  Otherwise, it is a matter of the industry working
together to develop codes of practice, and work collectively to educate the
consumer.

Please note the comments from the Chairman of the ACA in the annual report:
From: http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/annual/0001/overview.htm

" Voluntary industry codes are intended to provide dynamic, flexible
regulation for the industry and greater industry responsiveness for
consumers. After a slow start, the registration of 12 industry codes,
including six dealing specifically with consumer protection matters, means
the priority consumer issues identified in the Telecommunications Act have
now been addressed. Self-regulation in this area has been a success, and
industry appears to be taking its consumer responsibilities seriously.

The next challenge relates to how codes operate and are seen to be operating
in the interests of consumers. Industry commitment to voluntary code sign-up
and compliance is essential - self-regulation that relies on the regulator
for enforcement is self-defeating, and it is far better for industry to make
existing codes work rather than face mandatory requirements."


Regards,
Bruce


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 327 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. 324 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. 324 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. 324 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.