Ron,

appart from the bad publicity that DNS etc have received, what 'outcome' are
you actually happy about?

As far as I can see the courts rejected the majority of claims by auDA and
ACCC, and the action to be taken as a result of the claim it did uphold will
have very little effect.

The court has simply said that DNA is not allowed to breach Section 52 for 3
years. Well derr... they were not allowed to do so in the first place. The
court has not even deemed the breach to be bad enough to force DNA to send
explanatory notices to their clients as yet.

The outcome is very similar to what happened 2 years ago, the courts simply
told the parties to stop being bad, and made them pay court costs. It took
less than 6 months for these people to move state and start up again doing
the same thing. We've now had to go through another long court case, and we
are no further along the road then we were 2 years ago, meanwhile DNA is
still making considerable profits from these actions...

As far as I can see, the only significant damage done to DNA has been done
by the NZ and UK regulators.

I'm not saying auDA should not be going after DNA, just the bad publicity is
probably worth it, but the simple fact is that based on the courts
judgements, I'm quite sure that with a few modifications to the text of the
letters and a change of name, DNA will be able to continue operating and
doing similar things, and nobody will be able to stop them.

Maybe in about 10 years enough people will have been burnt by this to make
it not worth while for DNA to do it....

Bennett.



----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:20 PM
Subject: [DNS] Rafferty's Outcome


> To Chris Disspain:
>
> Congratulations and well done on the outcome of auDA's action against
> Rafferty & Co.  I, for one, would like to express my appreciation, and
> suggest that it was money well spent on behalf of our industry.
>
> I hope that you also succeed in recovering some of the funds that he has
> taken from unsuspecting registrants.
>
> Ron Stark
>