Ian, With respect, I do not agree with your analysis but do thank you for raising the issue which is an important one. " If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, inappropriate market behaviour should, by and large, cease." It has, by and large, ceased. In the last 12 months the only major problems have been with companies 'outside' the industry (ie not registrars or resellers) and have involved the same group of people. I am not suggesting that the current situation with DNA is either satisfactory or acceptable. It is not and it is being dealt with. auDA does not rush to the DNS list or media flagging the action we are taking in response to 'scams'. It would be inappropriate for us to do so. However, we do (often in consultation with ACCC) take action as has been evidenced by the successful proceedings against IRA (taken by ACCC) and ING and NetRegister/Rafferty (taken by auDA). I think it is important to understand the meaning of the words being used so that we can be clear what we are discussing in this debate. You use the word 'industry' in several places in your email below. What do you mean by this? Do you mean those dealing with domain names in .au or those dealing with domain names generally? There is an important distinction here. For example, you will be aware that the vast majority of the DNA mail out is offering names in the gTLD spaces not in .au. You say " Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, ineffective - too cumbersome, slow, costly". Could you please clarify what frameworks you are referring to? You refer to desired outcomes not being achieved according to some community standards. What are the desired outcomes and what are the community standards to which you refer? You refer to ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms. Which of the deterrent and enforcement mechanisms do you believe to be ineffective? I look forward to your response so that I may more properly answer the questions you are raising. Best Regards, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA ceo§auda.org.au www.auda.org.au -----Original Message----- From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au] Sent: Friday, 25 July 2003 9:43 AM To: dns§lists.auda.org.au Cc: jon§jonlawrence.com Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS and Spam > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. Kim, your not heading off on a tangent as I see it - you're spot on. I was about the post the following, in response to Jon Lawrence and Skeeve Stevens (see their emails below), when I saw your email. -- The following comments and opinions are put forward with a view to advancing debate - I'm not wedded to them. If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, inappropriate market behaviour should, by and large, cease. Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, ineffective - too cumbersome, slow, costly ... That is, they are not achieving desired outcomes, according to some community standards. That's what I hear many in the industry saying, and that's what I observe. Ultimately consumers of domain name services meet the cost of market and (any) regulatory failure. Ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms impose costs on auDA, ACCC, bona fide industry players and consumers. Consumers and taxpayers fund these mechanisms. With continuing market and regulatory failure - including failure due to the limitations of the regulatory framework(s) - the case for further government intervention seems compelling, unless the domain name industry / co-regulators can demonstrate that they can effectively deal with inappropriate market behaviour. I'm tending to the view that national legislation is probably required. For example, consideration might be given to addressing issues in the context of the (electronic) spam legislation announced yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Information Technolgy and the Arts <http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_15-4_115938,00.html>. A case could be made for the legislation to also deal with non-electronic spam relating to domain names. Indeed, the case can be made for the legislation to address the domain name industry's and consumers' concerns. I'm away from email till much later today. Ian -- Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL) www.setel.com.au mailto:ian.johnston§setel.com.au 02 6251 7848 (B) 02 6251 7835 (F) 0413 990 112 (M) SETEL is a national small business consumer association advancing the interest of Australian small business as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:jon§jonlawrence.com] > Sent: 24 July 2003 7:56 PM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: RE: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > If they're registering the names as a retail client, how do you identify > the order as coming from DNA? Block their email address? They'll just use > a different one. Block their IP address? Ditto. > > It's my understanding that the appropriate manner in which to deal with > issues such as this where the party involved is operating outside of > a contractual > relationship with auDA is under the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices > Act, and/or state-based trading standards legislation. I believe that auDA > is already pursuing this matter in conjunction with the ACCC. > > jon > > >-- Original Message -- > >Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > >From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve§skeeve.org> > >To: <dns§lists.auda.org.au> > >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:31:35 +1000 > >Subject: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > >Ok. Am I completely on the wrong track here. or isn't it quite easy to > >stop people like Domain Names Australia. > > > >When something happens like their current campaign, auDA should issue an > >order to all current registrars, including AusRegistry, to not accept > >any more domain applications from DNA. > > > >That way, any money they do collect, is simply classified as fraud, > >since they haven't actually provided a service (i.e. Domain Name). > > > >Maybe auDA needs to update policies and their registrar agreements, so > >that they can issue a 'Block' when someone launches a campaign like > >this. > > > >Is this on the right track? > > > >If you block their ability to register domains. then they are simply out > >of business.. How easy is that? > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ > >Skeeve Stevens, RHCE Email: skeeve§skeeve.org > >Website: www.skeeve.org - Telephone: (0414) 753 383 > >Address: P.O Box 1035, Epping, NSW, 1710, Australia > > > >eIntellego - skeeve§eintellego.net - www.eintellego.net > >_______________________________________________________ > >Si vis pacem, para bellum -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. > > I haven't been following recent spam developments in Australia lately, > but the flurry of articles in the media has been hard to miss... > > One article that caught my eye was at > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=589997653&fp=16&fpid=0 > which reads in part: > > Notably, the legislation also contains major concessions to > the direct marketing industry, who will be allowed to continue > to harvest Australian e-mail addresses on .com.au sites on the > Internet, essentially for the purpose of business to business > marketing. > > Is this true? Surely this represents a fundamental loophole and > misunderstanding of the role of second level domains. > > Having an email address end in .com.au does not at all signify that the > users of that domain are commercial enterprises. On the contrary, many > (most?) ISPs in Australia hand out email addresses under this 2LD to all > their customers. > > Secondly, such practice seemingly legitimises spamming .com.au domain > holders for the purposes of domain name renewal. > > I sincerely hope this is either an oversimplification or the author got > it wrong. I'd hate to see .com.au die off because it became some > legitimated spammer refuge. > > kim > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- > 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. (336 subscribers.) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- 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. (336 subscribers.)Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC