Yes, Ron, that's a sensible contribution to the debate.

I think I've been clear that I have an issue with how auDA managed this matter. I have not intended to endorse or vilify Bottle's or Nick's actions. If you have a comment you'd like to make about how I conduct business, by all means make it without innuendo, hypothesis or extrapolation and I'll respond accordingly.

Regards,

Larry Bloch 

Direct: ???????????? (02) 9934-0536
Mobile: ?????????? (0411) 545-118
Personal Fax: ? (02)? 8079-0741


-----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, 30 September 2009 11:46 AM
To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Larry,  judging  by your many comments on Nick Bolton you see nothing remiss
in his (or, more accurately, a Company he owns and runs) actions.  One could
easily extrapolate that and draw the conclusion that there's a substantial
ethical and moral alignment between you both on the way you conduct
business.


Given that you've emerged as something of a fan, why don't you offer him a
directorship and senior mamagement role in one of your businesses?  

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, 30 September 2009 10:44
To: Kim Davies
Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

...and Kim, we (as in Netregistry) have been threatened with
de-accreditation a number of times by auDA over matters that didn't warrant
it. Silly, trivial procedural things that are obviously going to be resolved
without waving the "big stick". As a matter of style, I personally feel you
wave the big stick only at moment before you strike, not as a threat to
enforce compliance. That's called a bullying autocracy.

Whether Bottle's actions warrant de-accreditation or not is what the court
determined. They determined that auDA had both the right and acted in good
faith in doing so. They did not find that de-accreditation was the
appropriate action (as compared to a financial penalty, or enforced training
or a gulag-style labor camp).

I have maintained from the start that auDA's actions were reckless and
damaged the stability of .au in contravention of auDA's objective as the
confusion to registrants (remember them) could have been easily mitigated by
having this court action before hooking them into the bunfight. That's the
main point here. As it happens, I think a - say - $500k fine would have been
a more appropriate penalty - and more in keeping with maintaining stability.
A fine would send a strong message, would have resulted in modified
behaviour, and would not have damaged an asset and the employment and
service it provides.

Moreover, given auDA's reasons for de-accreditation, it is clear the issue
they have is with Nick Bolton and the actions he has personally undertaken.
So now we have the position that Bottle can't be a registrar because it's
run by Nick, yet Domain Central can, despite being run by Nick. That seems a
little weird.


Regards,

Larry Bloch 

Direct: ???????????? (02) 9934-0536
Mobile: ?????????? (0411) 545-118
Personal Fax: ? (02)? 8079-0741


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 8:30 AM
To: Larry Bloch
Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Quoting Larry Bloch on Tuesday May 12, 2009:
| 
| 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.

Apparently the Victorian Supreme Court thinks it was warranted.
"[Bottle] demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to the effect of
credit card fraud upon its victims." I am no lawyer but that sounds like
pretty strong language.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/422.html

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


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