Some competitors appear to have decided to not comply with the rules, so as to
gain a competitive advantage for themselves and their clients, to the detriment
of others.  Detriment includes financial detriment - the incurring costs greater
than would otherwise have been incurred and/or the foregoing of revenue that
would otherwise have been received.

Prima facie, there has been a substantial lessening competition in a market.
There are questions of unfair trading practices, anti-competitive practices,
misuse of market power and denial of access to infrastructure.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is well placed to consider
complaints and inquiries about possible breaches of the Trade Practices Act.

I suggest that those adversely affected by the outcome of the auDA generic
domain name offering, consider lodging formal complaints with auDA and the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.


Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL)

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
advancing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deus Ex Machina [mailto:vicc§cia.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:41 PM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] And The Winner Is!
>
>
> Kim Davies [kim§cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> > Quoting Bottle Domains on Friday October 04, 2002:
> > |
> > | In the early parts of Thursday morning we were having trouble with our
> > | automated batching of generic requests.  Some undefined timeout from
> > | our connection.  Despite multiple attempts to correct this before 11am,
> > | we were unable to do so.  As a result, to protect our generic
> > | applications, we were forced to take alternative action.  This meant
> > | that around 57 domains were registered to our parent company Australian
> > | Style Pty Ltd, on behalf of our eligible registrants.  Bottle Domains
> > | has been in discussion with auDA and Ausregistry with regards to
> > | modifying the registrant details to that of our eligible customer, and
> > | this will be processed as soon as possible.
> >
> > The fundamental question is, did you have permission to bend/break the
> > rules prior to doing this?
> >
> > I don't believe rules are there just so you can break them when it is
> > convenient.
>
> bottle is not the only one to break the rules we had a similar problem
> and registered some domains in our own contact ids. we had optimised
> our system
> to register 400 odd domains queued in under 10 seconds on the test system.
> encountered problems on the live system with contact ids at the last
> minute. unfortunatly by the time we decide
> to "bend the rules" netregistry had got all theirs through in 26
> seconds. as a result
> 75% of our queue was already taken. not happy jan. working with chris
> from ausregistry to find out why!??!
> later in the day the exact same contact ids went through with no
> problems. hmmmm. netregistry tell me they had a similar problem
> but they overcame it by what looks like seconds faster then we did.
> our team did the best it could
> given the circumstances but on the day netregistry came out the
> winner. we have learnt next time will
> be a different story.
>
> I dont believe there was either time to ask for "permission" to
> "bend/break" the rules nor where
> the problems encountered "to be expected". the contact ids are easy
> to rectify once the domains are registered
> so given the road block encoutered I dont think bottle had much of a
> choice as to what action to take.
>
> the real question in my mind is why the test system accepted data the
> live system didnt before 11am.
>
>
> Vic
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.  (362 subscribers.)