> However, they did not make the determination that auDA should have de-accredited Bottle, only that they werte within their rights to. I believe they shouldn't have, that the penalty was extreme and unnecessary - it's my opinion. By having that opinion, I don't condone or condemn Bottle's actions, I just don't believe the penalty is appropriate.

Even as an outsider looking in, as a Registrant and not a Registrar,
and even with in mind Bolton's other interesting business practices, I
totally agree with Larry on this one. auDA is quite good at
overstepping the mark though, and then failing to comply with their
own regulations with regards to things like regular policy reviews or
scheduled policy reviews (timeframes within their own policies!).

Termination of their accreditation was totally over the top. The
entire system really does need a good hard look, and probably some
form of new solution. I just don't believe auDA is effective anymore,
which is sad. To go even deeper, and slightly more personal, I believe
that the problem partially lies with complacent and comfortable staff
and an ineffective CEO in Chris Disspain.

Regards,

Michael Purse