> Well I've got to say that I am disappointed. I would have
> though auDa would have made a concerted effort to get
> to the bottom of this.

George, I think this is a complex investigation, which may take some time to
work through.


> This issue is at the core of the fairness and openness of the
> registration system. All interested and eligible parties should
> have had an equal chance at getting the generic domain names.

I also think that most people would agree with you, particularly the consumers
of - and competitors for - those generic domain name licences.

Consistent and ethical treatment of competitors during a competitive process is
fundamental to effective self-regulation.  This must also be seen to be the
case, if auDA's integrity is not to be questioned.


--
Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL)

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
advancing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers



> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Iliades [mailto:george§psylon-media.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:15 AM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Generic Rigged?
>
> Well I've got to say that I am disappointed. I would have though auDa would
> have made a concerted effort to get to the bottom of this. This issue is at
> the core of the fairness and openness of the registration system. All
> interested and eligible parties should have had an equal chance at getting
> the generic domain names.
>
> How do we know if the system was not rigged?
> If some registrars were rejected what is to say this was not done of
> purpose?
>
> When a company sends thousands of renewal notices there is immediate
> investigations and it is backed be legal action, but when the fairness of
> the registry system is in question all we get is stony silence. Hmmm
>
> George
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Iliades" <george&#167;psylon-media.com>
> To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
>
>
> >
> > Where is the investigation at?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kim Davies [kim&#167;cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> > > Quoting Bottle Domains on Friday October 04, 2002:
> > > |
> > > | In the early parts of Thursday morning we were having trouble with our
> > > | automated batching of generic requests.  Some undefined timeout from
> > > | our connection.  Despite multiple attempts to correct this before 11am,
> > > | we were unable to do so.  As a result, to protect our generic
> > > | applications, we were forced to take alternative action.  This meant
> > > | that around 57 domains were registered to our parent company Australian
> > > | Style Pty Ltd, on behalf of our eligible registrants.  Bottle Domains
> > > | has been in discussion with auDA and Ausregistry with regards to
> > > | modifying the registrant details to that of our eligible customer, and
> > > | this will be processed as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > The fundamental question is, did you have permission to bend/break the
> > > rules prior to doing this?
> > >
> > > I don't believe rules are there just so you can break them when it is
> > > convenient.
> >
> > bottle is not the only one to break the rules we had a similar problem
> > and registered some domains in our own contact ids. we had optimised our
> > system
> > to register 400 odd domains queued in under 10 seconds on the test system.
> > encountered problems on the live system with contact ids at the last minute.
> > unfortunatly by the time we decide
> > to "bend the rules" netregistry had got all theirs through in 26 seconds.
> > as a result
> > 75% of our queue was already taken. not happy jan. working with chris from
> > ausregistry to find out why!??!
> > later in the day the exact same contact ids went through with no problems.
> > hmmmm. netregistry tell me they had a similar problem
> > but they overcame it by what looks like seconds faster then we did. our team
> > did the best it could
> > given the circumstances but on the day netregistry came out the winner. we
> > have learnt next time will
> > be a different story.
> >
> > I dont believe there was either time to ask for "permission" to "bend/break"
> >  the rules nor where
> > the problems encountered "to be expected". the contact ids are easy to
> > rectify once the domains are registered
> > so given the road block encoutered I dont think bottle had much of a
> > choice as to what action to take.
> >
> > the real question in my mind is why the test system accepted data the live
> > system didnt before 11am.
> >
> >
> > Vic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adriank&#167;ausregistry.com.au>
> > To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> >
> >
> > > Anyone care to make a wager...
> > >
> > > Surely those who have used the system thus far have witnessed its
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > We, at AusRegistry, have worked very hard to ensure that the system is
> > > at a "world's best" standard. Our "pre-live" testing showed the system
> > > to be capable of handling millions of domains, contacts and hosts. We
> > > are supremely confident that we can handle anything that .au can throw
> > > at us.
> > >
> > > We wouldn't and quite frankly, shouldn't be here if we can't handle the
> > > latest generic landrush.
> > >
> > > While I won't go as far as saying that NOTHING will ever go wrong
> > > (because it surely would as soon as I did), I know that Australia has a
> > > robust, reliable and efficient Registry System.
> > >
> > > Let the games begin (and those with too much time on their hands
> > > continue to mock...)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Adrian Kinderis
> > > MD - Sales and Marketing
> > > AusRegistry Pty. Ltd.
> > > Level 6, 10 Queens Rd.
> > > Melbourne, Victoria. 3004
> > > P: 03 9866 3710
> > > F: 03 9866 1970
> > > E: adriank&#167;ausregistry.com.au
> > > W: www.ausregistry.com.au
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Saints Support [mailto:support&#167;saintspc.com.au]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2002 1:02 PM
> > > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > I am just waiting to see the WHOLE of the .au go into melt down with
> > > a large rush of registrations trying to happened at the same time!
> > >
> > > I wonder can it handle the load?
> > >
> > > David Uzzell
> > > Technicial Sales Consultant
> > > Saints PC Pty Ltd T/as Diversified Data
> > > Ph 1300 36 55 70 or (02) 9533 7388
> > > Fax (02) 9533 7322
> > > www.diversified.com.au
> > >
> > > PGP Key ID=0xA594C38B
> > > www.keyserver.net
> > >
> > >
> > > - -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dns-return-3011-support=saintspc.com.au&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > [mailto:dns-return-3011-support=saintspc.com.au&#167;lists.auda.org.au] On
> > > Behalf Of Blinky Bill
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2002 12:51 PM
> > > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic frenzy!
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > If I apply for a domain now at MelbourneIT I assume I
> > > would be #400 in the Q. As you only accept one
> > > application per domain then there is 100% chance of
> > > you trying to register with auregistry. I suppose my
> > > chances of securing the domain all depend on the speed
> > > of the checkout chick.
> > >
> > > How long does it take to get approval from auregistry.
> > >  Also what happens if they switch on at 11:05 are you
> > > running some sort of tickle.
> > >
> > > 400 x 500 = $200,000 - the stakes are rising.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >  --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin&#167;melbourneit.com.au>
> > > wrote: >
> > > > >
> > > > You also need to consider that there may be multiple applications
> > > > received by each registrar for the same name, and it will
> > > > depend on how they order
> > > > their queues.  So if 10 people want the same name,
> > > > they each use every
> > > > registrar and each registrar has a system of equal
> > > > performance, you could
> > > > have a 10% chance of securing the name.  If you are
> > > > the only one that wants
> > > > the name (which you won't know in advance), then it
> > > > doesn't matter whether
> > > > you use one or more registrars, the probability is
> > > > 100%.
> > > >
> > > > So basically - DO NOT guarantee that you can get the
> > > > name.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bruce
...