To quote: "I've never stated I'm against any redress against Bottle - that's
a clear misrepresentation.".

I was a bit ambiguous - sorry.  Let me explain what I meant.  By your
spirited defense of Bottle and the absense of any concession from you that
Bottle were in the wrong, you appear to have condoned their behaviour.

Condoning somebody's behaviour in and of itself places you against redress.

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, 30 September 2009 12:28
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

I've never stated I'm against any redress against Bottle - that's a clear
misrepresentation. I've been vocally against how auDA managed the matter and
against the specific penalty of de-accreditation. I don't believe it's the
appropriate sanction - neither before the judgement nor after it.

auDA should have resolved this matter before registrants needed to be sent a
smorgasboard of conflicting instructions as to the status of their domain
management and supplier.

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 12:23 PM
To: '.au DNS Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Rod, in previous communications Larry has been against any redress against
Bottle, apart from perhaps a token slap on the wrist for the sake of
appearances.  In his most recent comment he appears to concede that since
the Supreme Court confirmed that auDA was right, perhaps - just perhaps - a
fine would have been in order.

Unless I've missed something, nowhere have I seen Larry agreeing that Bottle
were in the wrong.

To quote Larry: "... registrants (remember them) ...".

Yes - let's do just that. I would argue that it was precisely in the
interests of registrants that a) auDA stepped in and acted after seeking
redress and b) the Supreme Court upheld auDA's actions.  The Court's
appreciation of the registrants' position is exemplified in the quote
"[Bottle] demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to the effect of credit
card fraud upon its victims."

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Rod
Keys
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:05
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Ron,
Larry says a fine is the answer I don't know how a private not for
profit company can impose a fine I thought that was the role of
government to pass those sort of laws. Am I missing something here?
Rod


Ron Stark wrote:
> 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/
> 

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


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