Hi All,

There is definitely a need for auDA to be accountable to the community it
regulates. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Bottle affair is
clear evidence of that corruption.

The Board is unfortunately a rubber stamp (I served on it for years in two
stints - I should know) and is captive to interests that are entirely
unaccountable to the community.

In the end, what this affair sadly demonstrates is that if the structure is
such that the regulator has absolute power (as in many ways it must) it is
perhaps better for it to be a Government body, because at least then I is in
some way accountable to the electorate and the sensitivities of politicians
to exactly this sort of scandal.

Whilst the auDA Board may be immune to the feelings expressed around this
issue, Pollies definitely aren't.

Regards,

Larry Bloch | CEO | Online Growth Solutions Ltd

Netregistry | PlanetDomain | NETT Magazine | Hostess

Direct: 		02 9641 8636
Mobile: 	0411 545 118
Personal Fax: 	02  80790741
Email: 		larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au


T +61 2 9699 6099 | F +61 2  9699 6088| http://www.netregistry.com.au
PO Box 270 Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia

Domain Names | Email Solutions | Web Hosting | Dedicated Hosting | eCommerce
| Online Marketing



-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of
Brenden Cruikshank
Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:02
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the
moment)

Something is certainly required none the less, be it an Ombudsman or
something else... 

The chaos created last week, plus the current economic downturn makes me
feel .au is unsafe...


-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org] On
Behalf Of Anand Kumria
Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the
moment)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy to address
> disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a domain

[snip]

> provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The ombudsman
> would not get involved in other disputes such as the auDRP but only in
those
> that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, such as deleting a
domain
> or terminating a registrar.
> auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost of this, it
would
> equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding some of
their
> questionable projects auDA should instead look at directing some of these
> surplus funds into something more productive such as a Domain Name
> Ombudsman.

Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out problems
they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone Industry Ombudsman,
the Banking Ombudsman, etc.

It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a small
number of customers (registrars).

Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many decisions does
auDA make per year which are contested? If we are talking one or two,
then I suspect that the cost of having an independant ombudsman is not
worth it.

Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance criteria
to specify that both parties in a dispute go through standard
mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html

Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall back on the
courts.

Anand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/