RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

From: Ron Stark <ronstark§>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:36:34 +1100
Don, you have highlighted another fundamental problem.  The way auDA
currently seems to operate is to place publicly important information (such
as the release of the CoC, comments thereon, consumer alerts) on their
website, is if that somehow absolves them from further action.  However,
this passive form of publicity effectively hides the relevant information
from everything but a dedicated effort at discovery, and only then by
persons who have prior knowledge of its existence.

Not one of my clients to whom I've spoken has ever heard of auDA.  None know
of the website's existence.  So who is accountable, then, for the ignorance
in our marketplace?  More importantly, how can auDA redress it?  Such is one
reason why predators thrive.

In reaction to your suggested model:  As attractive as it is, I believe it
has one inherent weakness - the supposition that whatever authority sets the
parameters has sufficient information / feedback from the coalface to know
what parameters need to be set.  In other words, are we ready for it?

So we're back to where we started to some extent - needing grass roots
consumer input.

Ron Stark

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Cameron [mailto:donc&#167;]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2001 9:02 PM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: Re: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

>> self-regulation can work (snip)

Agreed Ron, there are many examples of this working very well in a variety
of Australian industries.

>> but only if we entrench the power to act decisively (snip)

Again, agreed, and in your comment... "I'm fearful that we risk being
emasculated by apathy", you have no doubt highlighted the fundamental

I am perhaps less surprised than might be expected, that my comment on the
proposed Code of Conduct is only one of two to be received by auDA... and
the other is from an anonymous sender. Clearly the Internet industry itself
is not keen on self-regulatory measures being implemented, and I'm sure the
broader Internet user-base is largely unaware of the existence of the draft
Code, or that comments are even being requested. (PS - has auDA removed the
documents section from their web? - Admitedly I only spent ten minutes
searching, however I can no longer find any links to the document archives,
yet I'm sure these were available/visible from the front-page only a few
days ago - I would hope with the appraching AGM that these will be placed in
a position of prominance).

Accepting that industry regulation is desireable, yet acknowledging the
roles, rights and responsibilities of Government in .au administration,
perhaps the 'best' option might be for NOIE to take a more active role in
these matters. NOIE could adopt the industry self-regulatory model being
implemented by another Federal Authority in AQIS (The Australian Quarantine
Inspection Service). AQIS are granting authorities for industry regulation
to industrial partners, however the policies for regulation (Codes of
Conduct and industrial procedures etc.) are set by AQIS for industry to
follow. In essence, AQIS sets the paramaters, and industrial bodies ensure
compliance through the processes of self-audit and recognised Quality
Assurance procedures (such as I outlined earlier in respect to records
management - ISO15489).

This model would go a long way towards alieviating the burden of the
Internet industry itself setting community protection policies (when clearly
some sections of the industry object to these policies), however the rights
of administering and auditing policy compliance would remain with the
industry itself - in this case auDA - this model would provide the 'muscle'
without removing the self-regulatory authorities, and (I feel) would go a
long way towards helping to create a structure that protects the customers
as well as those who profit from .au sales.

Regards, Don

This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 320 subscribers. 
Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.

This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 321 subscribers. 
Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Tue Nov 20 2001 - 10:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC