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

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

From: Andrew Heath <drew§>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:39:36 +1100 (EST)
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Robert Hart wrote:

> I find the statement that all backlogged registrations for
> domains submitted prior to 1 Nov 1996 have been cleared to be
> rather interesting.
> Would people care to check the registration and delegation for

Currently the AUNIC namestatus utility states:

This name is pending in the AUNIC registry, awaiting the Domain 
Administrator's response to the request:

    Object-Type: DOMAIN
    Organization-Name: The Hart Family Trust
    Organization-ACN: None given
    Reg-Bus-Name: Interweft 
    Reg-Bus-Number: 0188305Y (WA)
    Organization-Postal: 35 Summit Road Lilydale 3140
    Organization-Country-Code: AU
    Admin-Contact: Robert Hart  (RH13-AU)  hartr&#167;
    Admin-Contact: +61 91 720429 (FAX) +61 91 723560
    Tech-Contact: Adam Neat  (AN18-AU)  ipax&#167;
    Tech-Contact: +61 14 691 768 (FAX) 
    Created: 1-Nov-96
    Updated: 1-Nov-96
    Src: adamneat&#167;, hartr§, ipax§
    Parent_SOA: hostmaster&#167;munnari.OZ.AU
    Reason: Re-try for domain name registration - AGAIN
    ACN-Comments: Registered Business NOT a company
    Other-Domain-Names: no
> This is not as far as I can see completed (Monday, 18 Nov at 14:25 EST) . 
> A 'dig &#167; any' will certainly show that it has be
> registered - BUT as far as I can see this is *not* delegated. Certainly, I
> cannot get ANY name server in Australia beyond my own and my ISP's to
> acknoledge the existence of 

The request has not yet been processed. There are several reasons for 
this situation. 

As yet, Melbourne IT has not received any payment details for this 
domain, and as you can see by the creation date, it was created on 
November 1 1996, after the start of the new system for domain name 

To put this into perspective, this was a "resubmission" of an application 
which was originally created on October 14 1996, which was then rejected 
on November 1 because the business name was stipulated, but the legal 
status of the business was not. To quote the response that was sent on 
November 1:
"When an ACN is not available, then the legal status of the 
organisation, such as partnership or sole trader must be supplied along 
with the legal registered business details."

No doubt, many people will have seen this message in the past, but the 
forms explicitly state that this legal business status is required. 
Simply putting "RBN instead" or "Is a registered business" is not 
sufficient. The TYPE of business must also be supplied for a successful 

> As the registration/delegation request for this domain was submitted in
> early October, I would have thought that the progress report's statement
> about clearing the backlog implied that it was up and ready to roll.
The system certainly is working, and all the requests submitted before 
Nov 1 that we received have now been processed as per the status report 
of earlier today. 

It is however worth noting that there may be a few domains that are 
pending from before November 1 which have become lost in transit. We are 
now endeavouring to do our best to find out these domains from the AUNIC 
registry directly, and to deal with them as quickly as possible. It 
should be noted that these domains will not require up front payments, 
and will be processed free of charge as were the 2400 or so that we did 
receive directly. We hope that this process will be fully completed by 
the end of the month, but it is a painstaking process as we are sure you 
are aware.

If you definitely know of an outstanding domain name from before Nov 1, 
then please bring it to our attention. We are here to help you believe it 
or not... The sooner we can make sure that nothing is still lost, then 
the happier everyone will be. For domains which you believe are 
outstanding, please send an email to "dna_srq&#167;" (That's 
Specific Request Query if you were wondering) and we'll put finding those 
domains on priority.

> Apparently Melbourne IT and myself have a different version of the English
> language in use...I wonder which of us should upgrade to patch level
> .1996?

Actually we find "Ye Olde English Dictionary circa 1596" more appropriate 
for dealing with most domain names... :)

We can only do our very best...


Andrew Heath
System and Network Manager
Received on Mon Nov 18 1996 - 20:18:47 UTC

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