on 7/9/02 5:47 PM, ginger FISH at cyrille.lefevre§scifi-art.com wrote:

> 
> Furthermore, when Melbourne-IT had the monopoly they never cared about
> sending mail outs to warn consumers ( they did mail out in fact, but for
> commercial gain only ), now that their business is at high risk, they
> suddenly get trigger happy with the "mail out" thing..


Ginger,

Previously because MIT had a monopoly then if they did kick off their
resellers then it could be construed as anti competitive. With the new
regime their hands are freed somewhat.

At least MIT is being proactive more than I can say for auDA. With Resellers
having to abide by the code of conduct then I would expect more action on
behalf of Registrars.

Under the Registrar Agreement

"The Registrar is responsible for all acts and omissions of its Reseller in
respect of services provided under the Reseller Licence as if they were the
acts and omissions of the Registrar under this document."

I think Registrars must start being careful with who they appoint as
Resellers. It would be interesting to see who some of the more notorious
domain name providers are dealing with now. I assume under the Registrars
Agreement they must all abide by the Code of Conduct or face the
consequences.



Ian