>> * auDA has no grounds for complaint, as any use > of
>> sites with similar names
>> has no detrimental effect on auDA's operations.
>
> I take it from this you mean the more domains are sold
> the better off auDA is. I would have thought auDA
> would have to draw the line somewhere or is not
> prevention better than a cure.

No, I meant something completely different.

In general, you can't complain to the ACCC on behalf of someone else - only
the person who's been adversely affected can complain.  By and large this is
a sensible rule - it stops people claiming their competitors are acting
incorrectly if there's no evidence that anyone has been adversely affected.


auDA can't complain about someone operating a web site with a similar name
misleading registrants - only the registrants can complain to ACCC.  auDA
can't even complain that they're losing business to an unscrupulous
operator, 'cause auDA is a monopoly.  Whether someone registers a .au domain
name via a reputable Registrar or Reseller, or via an deceptive Registrar or
Reseller, auDA still gets its per domain name fee.  Therefore it hasn't
grounds to claim 'we've been hardly done by' to the ACCC.



That's why when the new system starts, auDA will have more powers than they
do now, as they've included in the Registrar agreements certain minimum
standards.


> auDA is very good at outsourcing to experienced
> companies. auDA should be held responsible somewhere
> along the line. Is there not some sort of audit
> process involved.

I must say that from day 1 I supported auDA using an existing auction site
for the process.  I never believed that an existing auction site with a
history of operations could have such poor security / processes that some of
the private data would become public.  I was gobsmacked when I realised what
had happened.  Silly niaive me for expecting a well known auction site to
not make such a mistake, I guess.



> Will AusRegistry and the new
> registrar sytem be another case of ooops we missed
> that one.

Well, one can cast aspersions on anyone.  Why not try and deal with facts
for once?  How about this one......

At yesterday's seminar AusRegistry said they (RegistrarsAsia, parent
company) were a gTLD Registrar, and said they were the 2nd Australian gTLD
Registrar to qualify, after Melbourne IT.  But according to the latest
SnapNames State of the Domain Report, RegistrarsAsia has zero CNO gTLD
market share.  Have they exited the gTLD Registar biz?  Didn't sound like it
yesterday.  Maybe I've misread the report.  Maybe I've misunderstood
something.  I'm sure someone can help me get the facts right.


> Meanwhile 330,000 australian domain holders
> will continue to recieve spam.


auDA's new whois policy for the new system will be one of the most
restrictive in existence.  They've clearly taken a very hard line against
spammers on this.

There are many types of dishonesty.  Misleading Registrants about domain
name renewals in spam letters is dishonest.  Its also dishonest to claim
auDA is doing nothing about spam when they're implementing one of the most
restrictive whois's anywhere.




Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959