RE: [DNS] domain expiry issues

RE: [DNS] domain expiry issues

From: <magic2147§>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:38:04 +1000
On 24 Sep 2002 at 15:56, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

Send reply to:  	dns&#167;
From:           	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin&#167;>
To:             	"'dns&#167;'" <dns§>
Date sent:      	Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:56:24 +1000
Subject:        	RE: [DNS] domain expiry issues

> > c) notwithstanding the fact that the renewal was paid now 
> > more than 24 hours ago to the 
> > registrar the Ausregistry database has not been updated and 
> > the domain is not visible.
> This would be a function of the efficiency of the registrar involved.
> The Ausregistry database update is entirely automated.  The WHOIS service
> will indicate the status of the domain name in question.
> > 
> > And would somebody please explain how it is that Connect West 
> > could become the 
> > registrar without having any authorisation from the registrant.
> > 

The Ausregistry database is still not updated  after some 48 hours. The reseller now 
claims that the Ausregistry failed to "change the status properly". Connect West  cannot 
be contacted by phone and are not responding to email.

This is an interesting contrast to the 

> This was on the basis that the registrant was listed in the Melbourne IT
> system as of June 2002 as using Connect West as its agent to manage the
> domain name on their behalf via Melbourne IT's systems e.g they may have
> registered or renewed their domain name via Connect West.  It came about
> following an auDA directive, after auDA consulted with those companies that
> became registrars on 1 July 2002.  After 1 July 2002, auDA advised all
> registrants the initial setting for their registrar-of-record in the new
> system.

As far as the registrant was concerned they did not register the domain via Connect 
West. They purchased the domain from Melbourne IT and paid Melbourne IT direct. 
Connect West and the reseller apparently became involved when they hosted the 
domain for a short period. 

In any event auDA did not actually advise the registrant of these initial settings because 
the advisory email went to the email address that the reseller had put on the records 
which was their own or one that they knew was out of date. I am sure that a court would 
find that in view of the fact that auDA knew that their records were hopelessly out of 
date they should have written to the registrants at the address shown on the websites to 
advise them that they had to deal with a company they either may have not known or as 
in the current case did not wish to deal with.  Also in the current case the registrant does 
not want to deal with the current reseller.

This is all goes to show that some resellers, some registries, the registrar and auDA  do 
not care what happens to .au registrants so long as they are getting their slice without 
prima facie being prepared to offer anything resembling service. And of course 
everything has to be administratively convenient for the latter three parties.

Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:06 UTC