Larry,
Unless you know what has gone on in the background(and once this is
settled I hope we all get a report in full disclosure from auda as to
the reasons for pulling the bottle domains accreditation) Tony from
Domain directors had his accreditation pulled and started again he took
it on the chin.



Larry Bloch wrote:
> ..so Nick should just have laid down and accepted that the regulator
> destroys his business even though he felt the regulator was wrong and had
> overstepped their legal authority? Please.
> 
> 
> 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: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 11:17 AM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
> 
> My declared preference is that no change to provider relationships occur
> (past, present, future) until a clear, definitive outcome is decided, and
> then a single, clear communication is provided that ensures the disruption
> and uncertainty is kept to an absolute minimum. What's yours?
> 
> I can't believe that Auda just decided to take away bottle domains
> accreditation just like that. There must have been a number of times they
> have breached the policy and their contract. They, I would have thought have
> been warned they might lose their accreditation if they have any further
> breaches and the security issues was the "straw that broke the camels back".
> Auda then decide to pull their accreditation that as far as I can see is a
> clear communication. If Nick then decides to fight it then surely he is the
> one who is causing and creating confusion in the eyes of the registrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Bloch wrote:
>> ... if you think that registrants being told "you're a, now b, now a
> again,
>> but wait, b, or c" is a good outcome.
>>
>> Bottle did the transfer because their existence was under threat from
> auDA's
>> de-accreditation.
>>
>> auDA's latest action has 'correctly' restored the status quo disturbed by
>> their de-accreditation, returned by court order, under threat of appeal,
>> only to be reconfirmed by court order, but remaining under threat of
> further
>> legal challenge.
>>
>> Ron, how would your customers view your company if these unwanted changes
>> were thrust on them repeatedly? They don't understand what it is all
> about,
>> they probably don't care about the background - like all businesses,
>> uncertainty is the enemy. They have the right to a stable service from
> their
>> selected provider with full ability to choose another at will without
>> interference from matters that don't involve them directly - like a stoush
>> between their provider and the regulator.
>>
>> What I find weird is how you and Rod support registrants being subjected
> to
>> weekly changes to their supplier relationships and the uncertainty
>> associated with an eventual legal outcome between auDA and Bottle. Surely
>> this is not good for the industry or those businesses concerned?
>>
>> My declared preference is that no change to provider relationships occur
>> (past, present, future) until a clear, definitive outcome is decided, and
>> then a single, clear communication is provided that ensures the disruption
>> and uncertainty is kept to an absolute minimum. What's yours?
>>
>> 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
>> Ron Stark
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:05 AM
>> To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
>>
>> Larry, you said "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."
>>
>> You're right - it would have been prudent to maintain the status quo until
>> the litigation was resolved.  However, it was up to Bottle to do so, but
>> they didn't.  Auda's actions have correctly restored the status quo,
> thereby
>> delivering your own declared preference.
>>
>> Ironic, isn't it?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> -----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: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 09:43
>> To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
>> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/
>