There are two significant issues from the published stuff from auDA's Code
of Practice committee.

Firstly, the timeframe.
The committee notes that auDA's estimated "go live" date May 2002 for the
new system.  Well, anyone that's worked with these sort of projects knows
some slippage may occur - but even so, its not that far away.

Therefore squabbling over existing practices of Registrar / Resellers is
pretty pointless - with everyone working to get a replacement system live I
think its unrealistic to expect anyone to expend limited resources trying to
take some sort of action (possibly unsuccessful) against an entity misusing
a system that is going to end in a couple of months.  Such action might not
even be resolved before the new system is implemented.

Let's focus on getting the new system right, folks.



Secondly, the sanctions.
The sanctions to breaches of the code of practice will apply to Registrars
and any 'accredited re-sellers' those Registrars may have.  but they won't
apply to anyone who registers domain names who isn't a Registrar's
accredited re-seller.  Any entity that wishes follow domain name renewal /
transfer practices that some may view as 'unsavoury' (no names, no pack
drill) doesn't have to be an 'accredited re-seller of a Registrar.

They can just be an ordinary customer of the Registrar.  So the Code of
Practice will have no effect on any entity that chooses to continue to
register domain names, but doesn't want to be either a Registrar or an
'accredited re-seller'.

There's nothing new about this - its exactly analogous to the renewal, for
example, of business names.  I could go out and spam thousands of companies
offering to renew their business names for them for a high fee.  No
enforceable code of practice would apply.

That's why I believe we need a two pronged strategy to successfully improve
the ethics of the domain name renewal biz:

* The code of practice - which will have some beneficial effect
* A change to the domain name information visible to the public (e.g.
creation date and street address should not be visible) - which will have
some beneficial effect.  I think this change should be implemented now if
only requires minimal technical effort.


Regards, Mark

PS - the auDA web site also has an 'interim code of practice' as a .pdf, but
it doesn't address sanctions, and is sketchy.


Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au