Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:05:27 +1000
>> Recently I was made aware by a Domain Name Licencee about the details in
>> how they were sold some 20 domain names.
>  First of all please clarify, the "They" in this comment.  I am assuming you
>are referring to Netregistry.  If not or if so, please clarify.

No a single consumer - in the vainof name protection.

>> isn't a country code.  At what time did Larry say it was?
>  As far as I know is not a country code either.  But it appears
>that Netregistry is attempting to sell as an alternative ccTLD
>or you might literally call it a cc2LD.

I don't know whether NetREgistry is trying to sell it as a ccTLD.  I spose
it maybe open to such intereptation by the consumer who really has a
limited understanding.  And boy are there plenty of those.  

In such case, the ACCC will issue Net Registry with a very firm directive.

>> You might get yourself a law suite from that statement.  Define an "Offical
>> Registrar?
>  At this time that is a good question.  However, still NSI until
september is
>the only official registrar or has the ability to appoint an official
>registrar in the .COM gTLD name space.  So now we are back to whether
> is a alternative ccTLD or is it a cc2LD?  My what webs we weave!

Hmm, actually that raises a very good point.  If the new IANA Inc takes
control  and NSI "looses" it's rights. Well .... I won't speculate.

>> Sorry but technicalll Net Registry isn't responsible to the client.  Just
>> like RObert Elz isn't responsible for the sale of a COM.AU name.  There is
>> no requirement for a FULL refund from Net Registry to the consumer.
>  I don't agree that Netregistry is not responsible to the client.  If they 

They are not responsible directly to the client. They are not contracted
between the client and themselves.  Only between thensleves and the
reseller.  The only obligation they have is to ensure the satbility of the
licence, and that is still in agreement between NetRegistry and the Reseller.

>a good business and operate in an honest manner that must be responsible
>to the client.

It is rare the grower of the Oranges takes responsbility for the soured
flavour of squeezed orange juice that is sold by a wholesaler to a juice
making copany to a supermarket to a consumer.  

Unless they know the oranges were faulty.

>If the consumer believes that he has been mislead, than it is
>the duty and the responsibility of that consumer to report that concern.  At 

Yes that is correct.  But the misleading statement is being made by the
Reseller not the manufacturer.

>that is true in the US anyway.  I take it that is true in Australia as well.

Similar.  The USA tends to litergate anyone and everyone who happened to be
around, in AU we don't get that carried away.  We don't sue Motorola
because we have an accident while driving our car and come off the road
because we were talking on the phone.

>> That is not to say the NZ company shouldn't provide a full refund if 

And the fact that the company trading is not under AU Law makes it even
more different.

To be honest, after a nights sleep on the matter - why the hell did Net
Registry allow a New Zealand company to resell to Australia.  That does
raises suspicions.

Thw AUS policy is only Australian Companies are permitted to apply for
reseller status.

The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convey Member (not employee)	  AURSC
Adam Todd                                 Personal  
at&#167;aus  or				   http://adam.says.sheesh
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network
AU Internet News
AU Internet User Mail List
Received on Thu Jun 18 1998 - 14:03:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC