No subject

No subject

From: <bogus§>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 07:53:44 -0000
If we are able to, then we have demonstrated in this thread that Australian=
 Style PTY LTD is ineligible under the current criteria to be the holder of=
 a this domain.

With the same rationale we've used here, we can use the same logic to then =
scrap ANY and ALL PTY LTD's, or Registered Sole Traders from domain=

The Onus does really now fall on the Registrar to confirm with their regist=
rant that the registrant is eligible, and to ask their registrant for proof=
 of their status as either Club, Not For Profit or Charity.

If this cannot be established, then the domains should go into pending dele=
te status.


-----Original Message-----
From:; [mailto:dns-bounce=;] On Behalf Of Ian Smith
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2008 4:02 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] more great auda work, NOT

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Sean K. Finn wrote:

 > Possibly he Has, Yes.
 > > maybe im wrong, i stand corrected, ofcourse "AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD =
 > > must be non profit, and Nic Mason who also seems to own a few
 > > names are all registering then in the name of charity.
 > > So what we've boiled it down to so far (Feel free to check my logic)
 > Is:
 > The domain
 > >>>> Domain Name:   
 > >>>> Registrant:              AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD
 > >>>> Registrant ID:           ACN 099892814
 > >>>> Eligibility Type:        Company
 > Has been registered as Either a Charity, Not-For-Profit, or a Special In=
terest Club.
 > The Special Interest Club doesn't have to be a charity or not-for-profit=

This is nonsense.  The 'Special Interest Club' provision - which only
used to apply to, I wasn't aware that the and
eligibility requirements appear to have been 'merged' - applies to
clubs, ie Unincorporated Associations, which are certainly not
companies.  Check your dictionary.

There is also provision for Registered Clubs, which are a very specific
animal, and are licenced under legislation provisions in each State.
They might also be companies, but they are registered as Registered
Clubs, and can get alcohol and probably gambling licences and such.

Registered Charities are also a special beast, and registering as a
Charity is *hard*, there are all sorts of specific provisions to prevent
Joe Blow registering as a Charity fraudulantly, not least the provisions
satisfying the ATO regarding tax deductability for donations etc.  For
these reasons, Charities are also easily found on the public record.

 > I can see nothing so far indicating that is NOT one of
 > the above, as I am neither privy to their Constitution nor their
 > Special Interest Club functionatilty.

Companies are incorporated.  Clubs are usually not - if they are, they
will then be Incorporated Associations, and have other rego than an ACN.

 > >From what's been said in this Email, we have to have more than
 > personal doubt for AuDA to actually investigate. AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY
 > LTD have not yet demonstrated that they are NOT operating in the
 > capacity defined above.

The real point is that all this is a smokescreen.  AuDA is now run by
and for the Registrars, and any pretense of holding registrants to any
provisions are merely for show.  Now that 'greedy domainer slime' (to
quote our old mate Randy Bush) are entirely running the show, taking odd
potshots at particular abuses such as this one that happen to come to
light will do no good at all, I'm afraid.

Since the domainer / domain 'sales' provision was introduced - quite to
the contrary of the weight of submissions to that stacked panel - the
slather has been completely opened, and with the current administration
of AuDA, it will stay completely open, though someone putting in enough
effort might get one or two out of hundreds of cases of abuse actually
deregistered, which will matter little to the aforementioned GDS who
have many more 'in stock'.

 > Perhaps his Special Interest Group is designed to horde domain names
 > for monetisation, instead of let's say, tennis or go-karting on
 > weekends.

Exactly.  You'd think the GDS would be happy to just rape {com,net}.au
and leave {org,asn}.au alone - but greed knows no such limitations.

 > Doesn't yet mean we should get out the spanking paddle.

There isn't one any more.  Plutocracy rules the .au domain, it's over.
If it wasn't all over, we'd still have Vic Cinc and co whinging here.

cheers, Ian

 > Cheers,
 > Sean.


List policy, unsubscribing and archives =3D>
Received on Mon May 19 2008 - 00:53:44 UTC

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