John, apart from the principle there's a simple premise for my aversion to
tactics as employed by Rafferty, and it has been consistent over the last 3
years or so that I have been a member of auDA.  It makes no difference *who*
the person or company is.

I and most others to whom I've spoken don't believe that we cannot afford to
have the entire industry branded and stigmatised by the actions of people
like Rafferty.  We had a similar situation with Sudakov and one or two
others.  As I have previously said, if we can't manage ourselves as an
industry, actions like Rafferty's will eventually culminate in statutory
regulations far more onerous than the Codes and regulations we have at the
moment.

Your snipe at "auDA's self made rules" is also misdirected.  The rules have
been developed by industry players, all of whom were given the opportunity
to participate in the process.  Most chose not to be involved, preferring to
let others do the work.  Despite that, all mooted rules and Codes were
published for industry comment.  Again, many chose not to.

I was directly involved in developing the suppliers Code of Conduct.  I
think that gives me the right, almost obligation, to protest when those
regulations are being breached.  However, my involvement gives me no greater
right than you, as another member of auDA, to similarly protest.

That you haven't only gives heart to Rafferty that you endorse his
behaviour.

Ron Stark



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Russell [mailto:jr§veridas.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 12:24 PM
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary 
> setback (Chesley Rafferty)
> 
> It seems to me that because of the hollow victory achieved by 
> auDA and the ACCC, that Josh and Ron are attempting to milk 
> every last comma of significance, and publicity,  from what 
> is, in my opinon, a piss weak ruling.
> 
> auDA and the ACCC and Josh are now trying to use the weak 
> ruling as the basis for a concerted and continuos attack on 
> Rafferty and co.
> 
> Rafferty and co. will simply look at the recent events as 
> "battle scars"
> along the journey.
> 
> Whilst I don't agree with their marketing tactics, the facts 
> are that they are not bound by auDA's self made rules.
> 
> My advice, to Josh and Ron, which I am sure you will not 
> take, is to let it go.
> You have wasted a lot of money for almost nothing.
> 
> Perhaps you have embarked on this anti Rafferty compaign to 
> lift your own profiles and establish your credentials to the 
> importance that you think you deserve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell CEO. CTO
> Veridas Communications
> www.veridas.net
> 1300 883 638
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note:
> This communication and any attachments may contain privileged 
> and/or confidential information intended only for the person 
> addressed.  If you receive or intercept this communication 
> and are not the person addressed, please notify me on 
> jr§veridas.net immediately.  No confidentiality or privilege 
> is waived by the receipt or interception of this 
> communication and its attachments by person(s) not being the 
> person(s) addressed.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chesley Rafferty" <chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au>
> To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary 
> setback (Chesley
> Rafferty)
> 
> 
> > Ron
> >
> > Let me try to answer with semantics:
> >
> > moron or fool!
> >
> > Whats the difference?
> >
> >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: > Yes, I 
> mean auDA.  
> > And I don't intend to get into an
> > > argument on what
> > > constitutes a Federal Regulatory Authority, because 
> that's what auDA 
> > > is, even it it's not a Statutory Authority, which is a different 
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your refutation I cited *exactly* from the 
> 2nd paragraph 
> > > in the Age article
> > >
> > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > - I have no need to "try reading" as you suggest.
> > >
> > > Irrespective of the semantics of the paragraph I cited or 
> the one to 
> > > which you refer, the anomaly I noted still stands.
> > >
> > > You either comply with the rules or you don't - you 
> appear to have 
> > > chosen the latter.
> > >
> > > Ron Stark
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chesley Rafferty
> > > [mailto:chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:48 AM
> > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > setback (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Can you please detail what the second "federal
> > > regulatory
> > > > authorities". Could you possibly mean auda....???
> > > >
> > > > Also try reading, it says "...vigorously defend
> > > its right to
> > > > conduct business without interference from its
> > > competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > It doesnt say that we as you seem to think
> > > "...vigorously
> > > > defend its right to conduct business without
> > > (APPARENTLY
> > > > REMOVE**interference from its**) competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > Ches
> > > >
> > > >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: >
> > > There's an
> > > > interesting anomaly in the article in the
> > > > > Age
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html)
> > > > > According
> > > > > to that report, Rafferty says  " ... had a right
> > > to conduct
> > > > business
> > > > > without interference from competitors and would
> > > seek to
> > > > have Federal
> > > > > Court injunctions lifted."
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that it was complaints from consumers
> > > and two federal
> > > > > regulatory authorities that had precipitated the
> > > "intereference" of
> > > > > which he complains.
> > > > > That's analogous to a criminal complaining that
> > > the police
> > > > interfere
> > > > > with his right to sell drugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience, being in business is a
> > > contimual process of
> > > > > responding to "interference from competitors".
> > > Since when
> > > > has it been
> > > > > a right to have no competitors, as inferred by
> > > Rafferty's statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Stark
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh&#167;email.nu]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:33 AM
> > > > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > > > Subject: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > > setback
> > > > > > (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scammer says court defeat temporary setback
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561426
> > > > > >
> > > > > > June date for Nominet legal fight
> > > > > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1154488
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DNA to test federal court judgement
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php?id=1924930834&fp=16&fpid=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Domain name seller appeals injunction
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chesley Rafferty + Bradley Norrish, etc 
> > > > > > http://whatsinaname.com.au/slammers/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Josh
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://josh.id.au/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> > > > > http://dotau.org/
> > > > > > Please do not retransmit articles on this list
> > > > > without
> > > > > > permission of the author, further information
> > > at
> > > > > the above URL.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -------------
> > > > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> > > > http://dotau.org/ Please do
> > > > > not retransmit articles on this list without
> > > permission of
> > > > the author,
> > > > > further information at the above URL.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo!
> > > Movies.
> > > > http://au.movies.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -------------
> > > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> > > http://dotau.org/
> > > > Please do not retransmit articles on this list
> > > without
> > > > permission of the author, further information at
> > > the above URL.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> -
> > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => 
> http://dotau.org/ Please 
> > > do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
> > > author, further information at the above URL.
> > >
> >
> > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
> > http://au.movies.yahoo.com
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> -
> > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => 
> http://dotau.org/ Please do 
> > not retransmit articles on this list without permission of 
> the author, 
> > further information at the above URL.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ 
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without 
> permission of the author, further information at the above URL.
>