Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

Re: DNS: perhaps suspect trading practise

From: David Keegel <djk§>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 13:55:07 +1000 (EST)
David Keegel wrote:
] >And some questions for Giles/Larry/NetRegistry.
] >
] >(A) Is NetRegistry's position that all anyone had to do was notify you
] >    (NetRegistry) of the content of these faxes, and you would then
] >    take it up with reseller and tell them to stop?
] > 
] >(B) When did you first become aware of the content of the faxes?
] >
] >(C) When did you request the reseller to refrain?  (Or how long after B?)

Larry Bloch wrote: 
] (A) Definately. We do not condone this sort of behaviour and have strict
] internal policies about what information a potential customer must have to
] be able to make an informed decision. Any suspect practices should be
] reported immediately to NetRegistry. We will make a swift decision and
] remedy the problem if required.
] (B) We became aware of the nature of the faxes earlier this week after a
] number of phone calls from confused customers. When it became apparent that
] there was a problem we contacted the reseller concerned. From acknowledging
] that there was a problem to taking action and contacting the reseller took
] about 24 hours. We in no way ignored or encouraged this reseller as Clive
] of MIT/INA seemed to imply.
] (C) We gave the reseller specific details of the parts of his fax that we
] were unhappy with on the 15th. He did ammend his fax but the subsequent
] version was little better. We contacted him again late on the 16th at which
] point he ceased sending any faxes and we formally suspended his reseller
] status on the 17th.

Based on the above reply and Clive's earlier statements that Melbourne IT
knew about this three weeks ago, it seems that Melbourne IT could have
stopped this fax campaign about two weeks earlier if it had contacted
NetRegistry directly and provided them with some details like a copy of
the fax, when INA first became aware of it.

Even if INA waited until after contacting the rogue reseller directly
and allowed them a day or two to respond it probably could have been
resolved within two weeks, had Melbourne IT chosen to contact the people
concerned directly, rather than choosing the roundabout route of calling
lawyers.  This seems to have just added delay, expense and a restricted
channel of detailed communication to the exercise.

If we can't talk to each other except through lawyers, we may as well
give up and move to the USA now.  Or at least get off the Internet.
 David Keegel <djk&#167;>  URL:
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
Received on Sun Jun 21 1998 - 14:44:01 UTC

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