I am unclear as to what both George and Ian are referring to. auDA is
investigating certain generic applications to ensure that there has been
no breach of warranty. We will not be reporting the results of those
investigations in any detail to the DNS list. I can say, however, that a
small number of licences have been revoked.

If however the below posts refer to some claim that registrars did not
have equal access to the registry then, since we have received no such
claim, there is no investigation going on. 

Regards,

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
ceo§auda.org.au
www.auda.org.au


-----Original Message-----
From: ian.johnston§setel.com.au [mailto:ian.johnston§setel.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2002 22:03
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Cc: george§psylon-media.com
Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic Rigged?

> Well I've got to say that I am disappointed. I would have
> though auDa would have made a concerted effort to get
> to the bottom of this.

George, I think this is a complex investigation, which may take some
time to
work through.


> This issue is at the core of the fairness and openness of the
> registration system. All interested and eligible parties should
> have had an equal chance at getting the generic domain names.

I also think that most people would agree with you, particularly the
consumers
of - and competitors for - those generic domain name licences.

Consistent and ethical treatment of competitors during a competitive
process is
fundamental to effective self-regulation.  This must also be seen to be
the
case, if auDA's integrity is not to be questioned.


--
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: George Iliades [mailto:george§psylon-media.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:15 AM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Generic Rigged?
>
> Well I've got to say that I am disappointed. I would have though auDa
would
> have made a concerted effort to get to the bottom of this. This issue
is at
> the core of the fairness and openness of the registration system. All
> interested and eligible parties should have had an equal chance at
getting
> the generic domain names.
>
> How do we know if the system was not rigged?
> If some registrars were rejected what is to say this was not done of
> purpose?
>
> When a company sends thousands of renewal notices there is immediate
> investigations and it is backed be legal action, but when the fairness
of
> the registry system is in question all we get is stony silence. Hmmm
>
> George
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Iliades" <george&#167;psylon-media.com>
> To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
>
>
> >
> > Where is the investigation at?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kim Davies [kim&#167;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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adriank&#167;ausregistry.com.au>
> > To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> >
> >
> > > Anyone care to make a wager...
> > >
> > > Surely those who have used the system thus far have witnessed its
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > We, at AusRegistry, have worked very hard to ensure that the
system is
> > > at a "world's best" standard. Our "pre-live" testing showed the
system
> > > to be capable of handling millions of domains, contacts and hosts.
We
> > > are supremely confident that we can handle anything that .au can
throw
> > > at us.
> > >
> > > We wouldn't and quite frankly, shouldn't be here if we can't
handle the
> > > latest generic landrush.
> > >
> > > While I won't go as far as saying that NOTHING will ever go wrong
> > > (because it surely would as soon as I did), I know that Australia
has a
> > > robust, reliable and efficient Registry System.
> > >
> > > Let the games begin (and those with too much time on their hands
> > > continue to mock...)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Adrian Kinderis
> > > MD - Sales and Marketing
> > > AusRegistry Pty. Ltd.
> > > Level 6, 10 Queens Rd.
> > > Melbourne, Victoria. 3004
> > > P: 03 9866 3710
> > > F: 03 9866 1970
> > > E: adriank&#167;ausregistry.com.au
> > > W: www.ausregistry.com.au
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Saints Support [mailto:support&#167;saintspc.com.au]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2002 1:02 PM
> > > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > I am just waiting to see the WHOLE of the .au go into melt down
with
> > > a large rush of registrations trying to happened at the same time!
> > >
> > > I wonder can it handle the load?
> > >
> > > David Uzzell
> > > Technicial Sales Consultant
> > > Saints PC Pty Ltd T/as Diversified Data
> > > Ph 1300 36 55 70 or (02) 9533 7388
> > > Fax (02) 9533 7322
> > > www.diversified.com.au
> > >
> > > PGP Key ID=0xA594C38B
> > > www.keyserver.net
> > >
> > >
> > > - -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dns-return-3011-support=saintspc.com.au&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > [mailto:dns-return-3011-support=saintspc.com.au&#167;lists.auda.org.au]
On
> > > Behalf Of Blinky Bill
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2002 12:51 PM
> > > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > If I apply for a domain now at MelbourneIT I assume I
> > > would be #400 in the Q. As you only accept one
> > > application per domain then there is 100% chance of
> > > you trying to register with auregistry. I suppose my
> > > chances of securing the domain all depend on the speed
> > > of the checkout chick.
> > >
> > > How long does it take to get approval from auregistry.
> > >  Also what happens if they switch on at 11:05 are you
> > > running some sort of tickle.
> > >
> > > 400 x 500 = $200,000 - the stakes are rising.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >  --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin&#167;melbourneit.com.au>
> > > wrote: >
> > > > >
> > > > You also need to consider that there may be multiple
applications
> > > > received by each registrar for the same name, and it will
> > > > depend on how they order
> > > > their queues.  So if 10 people want the same name,
> > > > they each use every
> > > > registrar and each registrar has a system of equal
> > > > performance, you could
> > > > have a 10% chance of securing the name.  If you are
> > > > the only one that wants
> > > > the name (which you won't know in advance), then it
> > > > doesn't matter whether
> > > > you use one or more registrars, the probability is
> > > > 100%.
> > > >
> > > > So basically - DO NOT guarantee that you can get the
> > > > name.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bruce
...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
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.  (368 subscribers.)