On Thu, March 31, 2005 9:06 am, Brett Fenton said:

> Irrespectively the registrant contact on the name requested that the
> Registrant be modified to reflect the current legal entity. We complied
> with this request.

And how did NetRegistry determine that LS1 was the correct legal entity?
Why is NetRegistry now making a determination on who is the legal
registrant of a domain name, when it has previously clearly stated it will
not.

Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au at
http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ clearly outlines that it
cannot be. It seems that NetRegistry clearly does not follow auDA policy
when determining .org.au elligibility?

It's becomes more questionable when this registrant change was made after
NetRegistry was notified by fax from Netrider (at the suggesstion of auDA)
to update the domain record with the correct legal entity.

Now that NetRegistry has admitted it did make the domain record change,
that it did not update the Last Modified date when it did so, and that the
change is registrant field is against Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the
auDA policy on .org.au at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/
will NetRegistry return the registrant and registrantID field on the
domain back to what it was until this matter is resolved?

> The fact you've had a falling out with your mate while unfortunate doesn't
> preclude us from taking instructions from the authorized contact on the
> domain

NetRegistry's Sales Manager was specifically advised via responding email
yesterday afternoon, that the contact name had no authority from Netrider
to make any change and that any claim by the contact name to represent
Netrider was false and fraudulent.

Yet, NetRegistry still allowed a change to the registrant record that is
against Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au at
http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ to this contact names
company.

> especially when in the first instance the name did not appear to be
> registered to a true legal entity, which is either a person or a
> registered business with an ABN or ACN.

That information was provided via fax to NetRegistry yesterday afternoon
at 16:26. If there was any doubts, full contact details were given to
clarify it.

> In the same way we modified the Registrant to be compliant

You did not. Section F, subsection 2A & 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au
at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-01/ clearly outlines that the
registrant change that NetRegistry made is incorrect.

> With regards to the 'problem' of the last modified date not changing this
> is not a problem with NR. I'm not aware of an EPP process where we can make
> remote calls to the Registry to modify the Registrant. This can only be
> done by manually processing the request through AusRegistry support.

Clearly any change to a domain record that does not update the Last
Modified field on the domain record contravene's auDA policy. I'm
astounded that you think otherwise and think that not doing so is
acceptable.

> This is what happened yesterday afternoon (without me being aware of it).
> AusRegistry staff then modify the Registrant of the domain.

In contravention of .org.au elligibility rules at Section F, subsection 2A
& 2B of the auDA policy on .org.au


-- 
Cheers,
Jason