Re: DNS: COM.AU DNA's Progress Report after Week 2

Re: DNS: COM.AU DNA's Progress Report after Week 2

From: Scott Howard <scott§>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:38:47 +1100 (EST)
> Subject: COM.AU DNA Progress Report after Week 2


> The major achievement of the COM.AU Bureau has been to clear all
> back-logged applications- REPEAT: WE HAVE CLEARED ALL BACK-LOGGED 
> COM.AU APPLICATIONS - received via the AUNIC register before Melbourne
> IT began its fee-based commercial DNA service on 1 November.  

I'm sorry, but this is simply _not true_.  The domain below has been pending
for almost 2 months. Melb.IT _are_ aware of this domain, with mail being sent
to them regarding it approximately a week ago.

Name Status Report
   This name is not visible to the DNS.
   This name is pending in the AUNIC registry, awaiting the Domain
   Administrator's response to the request:

    Object-Type: DOMAIN
    Organization-Name: Hydroshop Corporation
    Organization-ACN: 002 002 771
    Organization-Postal: 3 Chilcott Ave, Mount Hutton. NSW. 2290
    Organization-Country-Code: AU
    Admin-Contact: Sharyn D'Amico  (SD202-AU)  hydroshop&#167;
    Admin-Contact: +61 49 657 699 (FAX)
    Tech-Contact: Scott Howard  (SH29-AU)  scott&#167;
    Tech-Contact: +61 49 615544 (FAX) +61 49 615311
    Created: 19-Sep-96
    Updated: 19-Sep-96

Furthermore, it appears that delegations have once again been conveniently
forgotten in the statement that all "back-logged applications" have been
cleared. Previous correspondence with M-IT seems to imply that at least one
member of staff is not familiar with the differences between "registeration"
and "delegation", with at least one request for information on delegations
being answered as if the topic had been registeration.

If these "applications" include delegations, please explain why we currently
have at least 3 delegations which where requested before 1/11/96 still
outstanding, including one which was expedited by us (at a cost of $150),
and which currently has 25 business-minutes remaining until it's "guaranted"
time expires.(ie, until 9:25am Monday morning) 

> To clear this back-log of more than 2,400 requests, while simultaneously
> developing the new Bureau software and accounting processes,  set up
> contracts with Participating ISPs  and process new applications, has
> required some Bureau staff to work seven day weeks for five weeks in a
> row, and for other staff to work until midnight on some days, then come
> in at 7 am next morning to start afresh.  Half of the teams' time has
> been spent in answering e-mail and telephoned inquiries, the majority
> being from frustrated customers with severely back-logged applications.

So what??  Within approximately one month you will recieve at least
a quarter of a million dollars in payment for these domain (presuming 100%
payment)...  Not bad for a few 16 hour days...

> Of the inherited back-logged applications and additional applications
> received up until  31 October, we have processed all back-logged 
> applications at no fee (other than those that chose to expedite their
> request by paying a fee under the new commercial regime with service
> performance guarantees).  The applications registered free are
> registered until end of December, by which date they will need to renew
> their registrations under the pricing regime.  

Interesting definition of "no fee". Basically what you're saying is that
the domains were registered completely free, with payment in full of
$100/$125 due in a few weeks?!?

> date.   The Bureau's webpages have been amended to draw greater
> attention to the need to provide a payment in connection with a new
> direct application, and the mechanisms for payment have been expanded

The structure of these web pages is still in many cases illogical. For
example, the only link to the page containing the form to fax for credit-card
payment is located within a list of links, all of which are only links
to references further down the current page - with the exception of the
link to the payment page.

> During this two-week period, Melbourne IT staff responded to over 250
> email enquiries,  300 telephone enquiries and 100 faxed enquiries.  

And how many unanswered ones?? My current count is 2 unanswered emails,
and 2 unanswered phone calls (both during business hours - I gave up
after two)

> In response to suggestions from our customers, and after due
> consideration, we have as of today 16 November 1996 made the following
> policy decisions:
> (1) All DELEGATION CHANGES by the COM.AU Bureau will be FREE.  (This
> typically happens when users change ISPs, or when an ISP or an end user
> reconfigures their servers.)  This rule applies to all COM.AU DNs that
> are properly registered with the Bureau, and becomes part of the ongoing
> service provided by the Bureau to holders of re-registered DNs in return
> for their registration fees.  

Does this mean that the guarantees are gone too??  Delegations currently
appear to be taking over a month - are we likely to see this improve with
no incentives/guarantees on M-IT's behalf??

> (2) A FREE REGISTRATION PERIOD OF ONE YEAR for not-for-profit and
> charitable associations inappropriately registered under COM.AU :  these

So kind of you....

> (3) Expanded Payment Options
> Melbourne IT  is not prepared to relax its policy of demanding evidence
> of credit or payment in advance of processing new DN applications, 
> because by doing so - and thereby avoiding the management of bad debts -
> it can keep the costs of the bureau service to a minimum.   However we
> are now actively considering an option of invoicing for renewal of
> existing allocated COM.AU Domain Names.  I hope to make a policy
> announcement on this within a week.

Which of course brings up the big issue that appears to have been ignored
up to now - Who is going to be charged for domains??  The Admin Contact??
The tech contact??  Whoever cares to pay by the due date??  Whilst obviously
very little can be done regarding previously registered domains, wouldnt
adding a "Billing Contact" to all new registerations have been a simple
and logical move??

Received on Sun Nov 17 1996 - 02:07:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC