That is not the point. NetRegistry and ING should not be accredited
as registrars. Why?

NetRegistry stole the aunic database, as admitted by Giles dOnOvaN,
Managing Director of netreGIsTry:
October 23, 2001
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:saoMkQqBNb4C:www.australianit.com.au/ar
ticles/0,7204,3099899%255E15318%255E%255Enbv%255E15306,00.html+Giles+Donovan
&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1

NetRegistry denied any knowledge of the spreadsheet's origins, but director
Giles Donovan said his company had been involved in "commercialising" AUNIC
information.

Mr Donovan said the terms of the contract allowed NetRegistry to "look into"
commercialising the data, but details of how that should be done had not
been specified.

http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/10/23/FFX6DT563TC.html

--------------------
But on August 17th, 2001 Larry Bloch, CEO of netreGIsTry lied with the skill
of a US President:
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/archive/082001/0034.html

NetRegistry does not have a bulk direct email campaign to non NetRegistry
customers/contacts. The above statement is unfair and inaccurate. It's a
statement that implies a breach of contractual agreements between
NetRegistry and auDA, so its not simply question asking.


Josh did *not* simply ask a question. He made a statement. I think it is
appropriate to respond.

Larry
---------------------

Also as I posted before Larry has no objection whatsoever to continue
misleading
everyone with blatant lies on his web site.

BUT, when he got sprung direct marketting to the aunic database, he suddenly
has
no idea it was being done, which I might believe if he would act and correct
the
lies regarding what au.com domains are. For a CEO does he really have no
idea what
his staff are doing?

If that is what we are to believe, is that the kind of person we want as
a registrar, an incompetent blind man? But we all know Larry better than
that
and he has abused the trust of the industry and of his peers and he should
not even be considered for such a role. He was given the responsibility
of the aunic database and despite free advertising, it was still not enough.
He just expected everyone to bend over and say thank you master, may I have
another.

I want to know how you Mr.Disspain have stood by and allowed this to happen?
Are you lawyers all so crippled by the same law you hide behind? Or do you
just
all suffer from a truth impediment?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And as for you Sasha, you have been lieing for so long you are starting to
believe your own bullshit. I suggest you try your hand in car sales.

I am sure you will take objection to my bluntness, but my point is this.
We all just accept that a car sales man is going to bullshit us. Is that
what we want launching the new registrar system? a bunch of car sales men.

Most people know what it feels like to find out the pressure sale they
bought
from the second hand car dealer was a lemon. So why is it that you stand by
Mr. Disspain while Larry continues to advertise lemons.au.com on his sites
as being of equal value to .com.au?



Harry




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2002 4:11 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: [DNS] Code of Practice


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 renewn 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


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (327 subscribers.)