You are correct, my inference that you supported "weekly changes" is
disingenuous and a distortion of the facts. Your point is well made. 

However, it does appear that you support auDA's actions in de-accrediting
Bottle, writing to their customers to tell them they are now auDA tagged,
then having to reverse course after a court order and the ensuing mess. I
believe it could have been avoided by providing Bottle the opportunity to
test the de-accreditation in court before taking action that was
irreversible (in terms of the damage to Bottle). That seems to me to have
been a course of action that would be more in keeping with their obligations
and responsibilities.

Do you, or do you not think that this was handled badly by auDA? And I
appreciate you may prefer not to say. 


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 11:27 AM
To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Larry, if those changes were to have been triggered by my own actions (that,
by your own admission, were in breach of contract), any of my customers who
were impacted in some way would be rightfully pissed off.

If those changes were imposed on me arbritarily through no action of my own,
then I'd be mightily pissed off.

There is potentially an argument that to properly restore the status quo
auDA should have restored the original passwords.  However such was not
possible because Bottle seems to have changed all passwords in the course of
their original breach.

That begs the next question: Why would Bottle feel it necessary to change
the passwords in the first place, if all they were doing is changing the
registrar's corporate identity?

It's true that the current kerfuffle is not good for the industry.  Whether
it's a consequence of Bottle's actions or auDA'a actions is another matter.

My experience is that domain names only become a significant issue for
customers when their website goes down through failure to renew, or their
emails go down for the same reason.  I suspect that there will only be tiny
handful of registrants who are temporarily inconvenienced because they're in
the throes of doing something that necessitates some management of the
domain itself.  The vast majority of registrants won't even know that their
domain names have been transferred once then back again.

In response to your statement "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.", it was Bottle not auDA that initiated the first
change.

For you to infer that I support "weekly changes" is disingenuous and a
distortion of the facts, when there was one change (the original breach)
which was reversed.  If your argument were sufficiently strong you would
have no need to exaggerate.

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: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:43
To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

... 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/