Josh

This lack of ability by an auda director to answer a couple of simple,
intelligent very relevant direct questions is not only embarrassing to the
auda but the Australian domain industry. It's far from the first time you've
put your head in the sand like a terrified cowardly ostrich when facing
issues you don't like to address.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brad Norrish" <brad&#167;brad.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


I went to print www.whatsinaname.com.au/slammers only to my amusement find
it was 53 pages long.  However when you are asked a few short questions
about your fundamental suitability to be on the auda board you are
repeatedly unable to answer.



This lack of ability by an auda director to answer a couple of simple,
intelligent very relevant direct questions is not only embarrassing to the
auda but the Australian domain industry. It's far from the first time you've
put your head in the sand like a terrified cowardly ostrich when facing
issues you don't like to address.



Now on your last post you've attempted to dodge my question by asking me a
vague, broad reaching question about initiating an industry body. Despite
this huge ask I will answer your question.



I am quite busy at the moment and it may be a few days before I post but I
have a clear, logical view of how the Australian domain industry regulation
really should work and why. In the meantime here is a list of basic
questions including some that I believe you will find it necessary to avoid
answering with any logic.



Why are you representing the "demand class" when in fact you are a supplier?



Did you realize that you were actually a SUPPLIER of domains running a
company that sells domain names and related services when you went up for
election to represent the "DEMAND CLASS"?



Do you understand why the board is broken up into 3 categories (+
independants + CEO)? Why is that?



If Auda is unable to get a true representation for the "demand class"
without a conflict of interest (by the representative actually being
involved in the supply side) do you agree that there is a real problem with
the current auda system?



If Auda and the board was dominated by suppliers can you see cartel type
powers existing within the current model used?



Why wouldn't the model be dominated by suppliers when there is such little
benefit to be involved in auda for the average Joe Australian domain holder?



Do you think the current model is just when a particular competitor can act
as both competitor and regulator, if not what are you currently doing to fix
it?



As .au "demand class" representative (looking after the interests of those
in demand for .au domains) why are com.au domains so much more expensive
than .us .co.uk and co.nz country code domains? Is it because auda is poorly
run compared to the industry bodies of other countries or because such a
large amount is paid to Ausregistry?



Ausregistry has been enabled by the deal to both achieve astounding profits
and gain such great market positioning for international growth. This is at
the same time as wholesale rates paid for .au domains far exceed that of the
above countries. Why wasn't Auda able to gain a better deal for the
Australian domain holder? (This is particularly interesting with your
passion with domain name pricing)



Have you ever personally used the same lawyers as auda? If yes can you
confirm that you have you been billed separately to auda for these personal
matters?



**My wild guess** the most interesting thing about your next post will be
the method used to avoid these questions**My wild guess**



Even if/when you fail miserably to answer these above questions I will
publish my view of how the Australian domain industry should be regulated



If you can't answer find somebody more intelligent to stick a fist up your
back. and you just be a ventriloquist doll.







Brad