According to auDA the domain was being used for a business pupose and the details are yet to be corrected.  Of course there is no publication of the fact that a complaint was filed or the outcome of the investigation and no monitoring of the required update.

Details, details....but important details.  Under auda policy the registrant must be registered at law to be eligible and once a defect is notified it must be corrected within a period of time.  The time has expired and nothing has changed.

Question must be asked are auDA investigations being properly funded.  Elspeth has advised that she was dealing with about 300 emails in 1 day.

You must be aware that the tax office recently published a survey on the accuracy of .au registrant information and rated it as being extremely poor.  

Now in this situation auda can not point the finger at a registrar.  It is the registrar for some reason.

> Yes I did, the name was not changed.  The registrar of record was set as auDA.
> 
> > ] During the round of generic domain name auctions auda allowed registrants to take registrations from entities that do not exist at law.
> > ] 
> > ] For example law.net.au has been registered by a non-legal entity.  I filed a complaint with auda on this a couple of weeks ago and as auda is the registrar of record nothing has happened.  Surely this domain along with other such names should be placed in the the domain market.
> > 
> > There is a legal entity called "Minter Ellison Services Pty Limited".
> > If that company's name is not correctly recorded in whois, that does
> > not mean the company does not exist.  (I'm not being flip, this is a
> > crucial point to understand.)
> > 
> > I believe that if you contact the registrar, they should fix this
> > defect by updating the registry details so that the registrant name
> > field accurately reflects the legal name of the registrant (changing
> > "Minter Ellison Services" to "Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd" for
> > example, presumably after consulting the registrant).
> > 
> > A simple error in recording the exact legal name of the registrant
> > in the registry database is not what I would consider sufficient
> > reason for a domain license to be revoked.