Rod, Ron,

Overall, the outcomes for registrants of Bottle in this affair precipitated
by the actions of auDA have been far from ideal - as a result of actions of
both parties.

Again, this transfer from one registrar to another initiated by Bottle may
or may not have breached the Registrar Agreement. Contracts are never
absolutely clear - that's why we have lawyers - to argue the wiggle room.

If Bottle has advice that the transfer didn't breach their registrar
agreement and they are prepared to argue that in court, then where are
registrants left - in more limbo with two parties fighting over who should
be their provider.

Yet again, I press my point that all this could have been avoided if auDA
had allowed these matters to be tested in court BEFORE de-accrediting
Bottle. That way there would be a legal outcome which both parties would
have to abide by and either no impact on registrants if Bottle won, or a
single, clear, unequivocal message if they had lost.

This latest development and all the previous ones are highly undesirable and
reflect a regulator that believes there is no accountability for its
actions. A power unto themselves and damn the registrants or industry
players that serve as collateral damage to their pronouncements.

Agreements need to be respected - definitely. We all have to be accountable
to the letter of that document. We all breach it unintentionally from time
to time as we all have employees that at some point or another misinterpret
or misunderstand some detail - and when that happens it is appropriate for
the regulator to maintain the integrity of the system - with proportionate
sanction if the breach is serious. But the regulator should be considering
the best interest of the end users of .au domains, and given the options, I
fail to see that it has discharged that duty in this Bottle case - and again
in this latest twist.

Given the legal action underway, whats would have been the harm to make
their concerns known to Bottle for the record, but maintain the status quo
until the legal case finishes? This smacks of being a further hatchet job to
disenchant Bottle customers.

Anyway, enough from me - my feelings on the matter are presumably clear.
Lets see what transpires - and hopefully we can get to a swift conclusion.


Regards,

Larry Bloch 

-----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
Rod Keys
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2009 11:39 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Larry,
Bottle can have all the right t&c's in place that their customers agree
to when signing up but the fact is the registrar/auda contract is the
main document that bottle in all it's guises signed up to you can't
invent your rules without thinking about the rules of the business your
in. There is always someone who holds a bigger stick than you.
Understand the contract you signed and be bound by it that is why it's
there. I have to agree with Ron moving from one entity to another like
named entity only confuses domain name holders and is trying to move
assets to another entity to the determent of the registrant.



Larry Bloch wrote:
> If a customer enters an agreement with a corporate entity that allows that
> entity to assign the benefit of the agreement to another entity, then
there
> s no issue if it does so. Presumably Bottle had such agreements or they
> wouldn't/shouldn't have done the assignment. Assumning they did have that
> right in their contract with the registrants, this transfer may not breach
> auDA policy, which applies to transfers from one registrar to another
> initiated by a reseller or a registrant.
>
>
> 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
> Ron Stark
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2009 6:21 PM
> To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
>
> I suspect it's rather more than simply transferring domain names.  
>
> There is also the issue of transferring significant assets from one
> corporate entiry to another, without clients' permission.  Can the
> registrant trust the new entity?  Does it have substance?  Does it have a
> track record?  Or is it a manoevre to pre-emptiveley transfer assets?
>
> Given the litigation in progress I must admit that I'd be rather skeptical
> of Bottle's motives.
>
> Larry, I'm disquieted by your apparent support of what appears to be a
> blatant breach of contract.  Do you allow your own customers to get away
> with it, if they happen to disagree with your rules?
>
> Ron Stark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Larry
> Bloch
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2009 17:34
> To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
>
> Seriously, a transfer breach is a transfer breach - when we do it we all
> have to cop it. But if registrars think that they can rub their hands in
> glee over Bottle's de-accreditation by auDA, you should remember that it
> could be your business next.
>
> I'm on Bottle's side on this because it is bullying tactics, its
arbitrary,
> and it could be any one of us next. I'm not standing up for the rights of
> downtrodden registrars, I'm standing for the right of my business to not
be
> threatened by de-accreditation (and ensuing oblivion) over a matter that
> doesn't warrant it. I'm pretty bemused as to why I'm the only one. Surely
> you don't want a regulator that destroys businesses and employment with
> little notice for questionable reasons just because it can. 
>
> If auDA is unaccountable, it will do as it pleases regardless of the
> consequence - because there will be no consequence.
>
> 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
> Rod Keys
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2009 3:42 PM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
>
> FYI
>
> http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-12052009/
>
> Now we just have to sit back and watch Larry Blocks publicity machine do
> it's thing to stand up for the rights of downtrodden registrars.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>   

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