On 14 Jun 2004 at 16:30, Phillip Pudney wrote:

> Hey Malcolm,
> 
> Good to hear they actually received your letter!
> 
> I paid for a soliciter to notarize a letter and posted it a month ago, but
> they claim they haven't received it yet (no, it wasn't sent via registered
> mail, because TotalNIC won't sign for registered mail!). This seems to be
> the consistent response they give to most other people.
> 
> Being a student, I am not overly impressed, as you can imagine :-(
> 
> Phil.

ACCC have been investigating the activities of this shower for over two years. If 
anybody would like to have the contact details of the ACCC officer who has conduct 
of the file please contact me direct.

It's not just auDA who should be criticised for allowing them to become a registrar. 
ICANN have allowed them to continue as a registrar despite allegedly acknowledging 
that they might be acting improperly. This included, allegedly, registering likely 
domains  that people allowed to expire in frustration at their policies (and the fact that 
for some three days no gTLD domains registered through them were visible) in false 
names and then allegedly offering them for sale through some specious auction site.

The one good thing is that on the figures I have seen the numbers of domains 
registered through them has apparently steadily dwindled.

However one must be cautious what one says. Site Point had quite a long thread 
about Totalnic/Capital Networks until good old Ed Sweeney (who is subscribed to this 
list) whacked them with a threat of legal action and they took it down.

It would be interesting to discover what was the real story behind Totalnic's Jeckyll 
and Hyde behaviour. They were as they say the "first half price" registrar. They were 
great to deal with in the early days and then suddenly the wheels seemed to fall off. 

cb