>Not once but twice- ie due on such a date and due now and not just electronically
>or if electronically then that
>electronic mail must be replied to if not a "snail mail notice sent"

Snail mail?  Do you hate trees?


>-- Original Message --
>From: "Tony Paterson" <tony&#167;cmon.com.au>
>To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:42:58 +1000
>Subject: [DNS] ponder this
>Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
>
>
>2 subjects:
>Subject 1.
>
>License Period- bla bla- Hold to the rules and you are okay
>Bennett writes " As far as Enetica is concerned, we do not register domains
>from the drop 
>list for ourselves unless they are specifically applicable to us and our
>
>services. The drop list is there for our customers. Registrar's 
>activities are also restricted by 'frontrunning' clauses in our auDA"
>
>More importantly - "The drop list is there for our customers."
>What Customers and how do they get preferential treatment over the general
>business/public-?
>
>I think that in order to remove the "stench" of domain scalping.
>
>Should not the current registrant be advised in writing - hard copy and
electronic
>that their url is due for
>renewal.
>Not once but twice- ie due on such a date and due now and not just electronically
>or if electronically then that
>electronic mail must be replied to if not a "snail mail notice sent"
>Should not a reseller be restricted from taking domains that he has "control
>of" in a 3rd party relationship
>Should not the current registrant have to sign a release of the domain
if
>they no longer want it rather that the
>current method.
>That there be a cooling off period of say 30 days in order for correspondence
>to be received and replied to.
>
>I also believe all registrars should be bonded and if they are found in
breach
>of the rules they loose their bond-
>lets say $100,000.00 = each event=That should keep them honest and ethical.
>In addition all registrars should
>publish a "Notice of Interests" in all organizations they are involved
-
>in other words all
>affiliates/vendor/sales/domainier /domain name monetization programs etc.
>They should also list all domains that
>they have registered- in their own name/s, are in partnership, along with
>the appropriate relationship description
>to their business (Close and substantial statement)
>
>It is the ethicists and principals of the registrar's that is important!
>
>Subject 2
>
>NOW PONDER THIS My dear Au DNS Discussion list.
>
>
>What would you say to the following scenario?
>
>Saturday night
>You check to see if a domain (.com.au) you want is available-
>It is! Yeh!
>You apply for the domain and process the application and have money on
deposit
>with the registrar so payment is
>fully made through an account in credit)
>Application is taken as successful.
>Sunday evening comes you check your email and whoa!
>You have received a notice to say you are unsuccessful.
>You say to yourself how can this be?
>You query the name you registered and find that it registered to another
>customer of the registrar. (one who has a
>large number of domains registered through that registrar. one who in the
>past has been a point of discussion as
>he/they bent the rules to take advantage of domain name registrations in
>the recent past. one who is lets say has
>less principal than most- my personal opinion)
>You queried the registrar and ask how this is so?
>You ask to see the log files-
>The registrar says there was a mistake and that there was a mix up in the
>reading of the applications????
>How is this so>>>??? I thought all applications were treated on a first
come
>first serve basis- Didn't you???
>The Registrar backpedals and says we have reversed the "second applicants"
>approval and the domain name is now in
>your name as requested.
>In addition, all this happens on a weekend when the registrar's office
is
>closed.
>So how was the second registrant approved over the first registrant if
the
>office was closed and the approvals were
>done anyway????????
>
>Bye, the way I am a logistician and the scenario above just seem to have
>that pungent odour of  "events not even
>they / I could arrange-insider-buddy-buddy-bent-bent-tica-tica-mar-mar-xtc-xtc"-
>(yes a little cryptic I know but I
>know you will get it if you think about it)
>
>What do you think? 
>
>PS: I have had the email string sent to me on this- confirming what I have
>written- and find it fascinating.
>
>Anthony (Tony) Paterson
>Cmon.com.au Pty Ltd
>www.cmon.com.au
>"Australia wide ISP and Broadband ADSL"
>Dial up starts at $9.75  ADSL at $29.95 see site for details
>Supporting the community through -see site for details
>tony&#167;cmon.com.au 
> 
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dns-bounces+tony=cmon.com.au&#167;dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+tony=cmon.com.au§dotau.org]
>On Behalf Of Bennett
>Oprysa
>Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:41 PM
>To: .au DNS Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [DNS] Licence Period
>
>
>Tony Owen wrote:
>> Do registrars have an unfair advantage when speculating on dropped names?
>> 
>> If so, why are they allowed this advantage?
>
>That's like saying 'why do registars get direct access to the registry?'
>
>Why shouldn't we?
>
>Anyway, whether you like it or not, I'm not going to tell you how it's

>done, you'll just have to stay up at night panicing over the possibility
>
>that the evil registrars might have access to something you don't.
>
>As far as Enetica is concerned, we do not register domains from the drop
>
>list for ourselves unless they are specifically applicable to us and our
>
>services. The drop list is there for our customers. Registrar's 
>activities are also restricted by 'frontrunning' clauses in our auDA 
>contracts.
>
>Regards,
>Bennett.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/