[DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8

[DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8

From: David Lye <davidlye§privatefleet.com.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:57:51 +1000
Disspain hinted at introducing some sort of cost-effective appeals option where domain owners who have had their names arbitrarily deleted can seek judgement from a third party at an independent hearing of some sort.  This was during his talk at TRAFFIC last year.

I wonder whether this has progressed or whether it was simply lip service to try and placate the increasingly large number of aggrieved domain owners.  Unfortunately I tend to think this is the case and as always, the only way to defend a domain name worth will be to spend thousands in the federal court.  Because 99.9% of domains are worth less than this, it's a hopeless recourse.

David Lye
www.netfleet.com.au


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org 
> [mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org] 
> On Behalf Of dns-request&#167;dotau.org
> Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 5:00 AM
> To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8
> 
> Send DNS mailing list submissions to
> 	dns&#167;dotau.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	dns-request&#167;dotau.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	dns-owner&#167;dotau.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
> specific than "Re: Contents of DNS digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on (for the
>       moment) (Anand Kumria)
>    2. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the
>       moment) (Brenden Cruikshank)
>    3. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on (for the
>       moment) (info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au)
>    4. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on (for the
>       moment) (Larry Bloch)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:52:12 +0100
> From: Anand Kumria <wildfire&#167;progsoc.uts.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on
> 	(for the 	moment)
> To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<971f65790904220252q677df54fi9927a0c32353ad21&#167;mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy 
> to address 
> > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a 
> > domain
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The 
> > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as 
> the auDRP 
> > but only in those that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, 
> > such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar.
> > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost 
> of this, it 
> > would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding 
> > some of their questionable projects auDA should instead look at 
> > directing some of these surplus funds into something more 
> productive 
> > such as a Domain Name Ombudsman.
> 
> Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out 
> problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone 
> Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc.
> 
> It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a 
> small number of customers (registrars).
> 
> Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many 
> decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we 
> are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of 
> having an independant ombudsman is not worth it.
> 
> Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance 
> criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through 
> standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?
> 
> http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html
> 
> Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall 
> back on the courts.
> 
> Anand
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:02:07 +1000
> From: Brenden Cruikshank <brenden.cruikshank&#167;spiritconnect.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on
> 	(for the 	moment)
> To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	
> <4F2264317949EC4F8DC3715E162EA00F2997AE7D46&#167;wgeeb001.hosted-pr
> oducts.net>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Something is certainly required none the less, be it an 
> Ombudsman or something else... 
> 
> The chaos created last week, plus the current economic 
> downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au&#167;dotau.org 
> [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au&#167;do
> tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria
> Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains 
> lives on (for the moment)
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy 
> to address 
> > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a 
> > domain
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The 
> > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as 
> the auDRP 
> > but only in those that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, 
> > such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar.
> > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost 
> of this, it 
> > would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding 
> > some of their questionable projects auDA should instead look at 
> > directing some of these surplus funds into something more 
> productive 
> > such as a Domain Name Ombudsman.
> 
> Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out 
> problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone 
> Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc.
> 
> It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a 
> small number of customers (registrars).
> 
> Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many 
> decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we 
> are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of 
> having an independant ombudsman is not worth it.
> 
> Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance 
> criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through 
> standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?
> 
> http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html
> 
> Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall 
> back on the courts.
> 
> Anand
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:16:48 +1000
> From: info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on
> 	(for the 	moment)
> To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<7C5FD01D-2C1E-46FB-AF57-54B29F65097C&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> This is not just limited to registrars but for any person 
> that is effected by one of auDA's arbitrary decisions - i.e. 
> anyone with a domain could be effected. As there are over 1M 
> .au domains registered, the scope is quite large.
> 
> I would estimate that hundreds, if not thousands, of domains 
> are subject to auDA's arbitrary decisions each year, with no 
> recourse for the people affected unless they have the time 
> and money to take it through the courts. In most cases it's 
> just not worth it and so they do nothing about it. Hence the 
> need for an option such as an ombudsman to balance out the 
> unfettered power of auDA.
> 
> I know of one organisation that had registered many hundreds 
> of domains and was using them in accordance with auDA's 
> policies, until one day auDA decided to use their arbitrary 
> power to delete them all.  
> It cost the registrant many tens-of-thousands of dollars to 
> fight this issue and they eventually got to keep the domains.
> 
> If you speak to those high-up in the various registrars, they 
> could tell you story after story of such arbitrary decisions 
> by auDA, even decisions which appear completely contradictory.
> 
> Something needs to be done.
> 
> 
> On 22/04/2009, at 7:52 PM, Anand Kumria wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  
> <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> >> Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy 
> to address 
> >> disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a 
> >> domain
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The 
> >> ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as 
> the auDRP 
> >> but only in those that have arisen because of a decision 
> auDA made, 
> >> such as deleting a domain or terminating a registrar.
> >> auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost 
> of this, 
> >> it would equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than 
> >> funding some of their questionable projects auDA should 
> instead look 
> >> at directing some of these surplus funds into something more 
> >> productive such as a Domain Name Ombudsman.
> >
> > Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point 
> out problems 
> > they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone Industry 
> Ombudsman, 
> > the Banking Ombudsman, etc.
> >
> > It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a small 
> > number of customers (registrars).
> >
> > Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many decisions does 
> > auDA make per year which are contested? If we are talking 
> one or two, 
> > then I suspect that the cost of having an independant 
> ombudsman is not 
> > worth it.
> >
> > Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar 
> acceptance criteria 
> > to specify that both parties in a dispute go through standard 
> > mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?
> >
> > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html
> >
> > Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall 
> back on the 
> > courts.
> >
> > Anand
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:25:17 +1000
> From: "Larry Bloch" <larry.bloch&#167;netregistry.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses,	Bottle Domains lives on
> 	(for the 	moment)
> To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Message-ID: <000f01c9c33d$0409c3e0$0c1d4ba0$&#167;bloch§netregistry.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> There is definitely a need for auDA to be accountable to the 
> community it regulates. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, 
> and the Bottle affair is clear evidence of that corruption.
> 
> The Board is unfortunately a rubber stamp (I served on it for 
> years in two stints - I should know) and is captive to 
> interests that are entirely unaccountable to the community.
> 
> In the end, what this affair sadly demonstrates is that if 
> the structure is such that the regulator has absolute power 
> (as in many ways it must) it is perhaps better for it to be a 
> Government body, because at least then I is in some way 
> accountable to the electorate and the sensitivities of 
> politicians to exactly this sort of scandal.
> 
> Whilst the auDA Board may be immune to the feelings expressed 
> around this issue, Pollies definitely aren't.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Larry Bloch | CEO | Online Growth Solutions Ltd
> 
> Netregistry | PlanetDomain | NETT Magazine | Hostess
> 
> Direct: 		02 9641 8636
> Mobile: 	0411 545 118
> Personal Fax: 	02  80790741
> Email: 		larry.bloch&#167;netregistry.com.au
> 
> 
> T +61 2 9699 6099 | F +61 2  9699 6088| 
> http://www.netregistry.com.au PO Box 270 Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
> 
> Domain Names | Email Solutions | Web Hosting | Dedicated 
> Hosting | eCommerce
> | Online Marketing
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org] 
> On Behalf Of Brenden Cruikshank
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:02
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains 
> lives on (for the
> moment)
> 
> Something is certainly required none the less, be it an 
> Ombudsman or something else... 
> 
> The chaos created last week, plus the current economic 
> downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au&#167;dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au&#167;do
> tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria
> Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains 
> lives on (for the
> moment)
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> > Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy 
> to address 
> > disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a 
> > domain
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The 
> > ombudsman would not get involved in other disputes such as 
> the auDRP 
> > but only in
> those
> > that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, such as deleting a
> domain
> > or terminating a registrar.
> > auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost 
> of this, it
> would
> > equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than 
> funding some of
> their
> > questionable projects auDA should instead look at directing some of 
> > these surplus funds into something more productive such as a Domain 
> > Name Ombudsman.
> 
> Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out 
> problems they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone 
> Industry Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman, etc.
> 
> It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a 
> small number of customers (registrars).
> 
> Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many 
> decisions does auDA make per year which are contested? If we 
> are talking one or two, then I suspect that the cost of 
> having an independant ombudsman is not worth it.
> 
> Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance 
> criteria to specify that both parties in a dispute go through 
> standard mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?
> 
> http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html
> 
> Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall 
> back on the courts.
> 
> Anand
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNS mailing list
> DNS&#167;dotau.org
> http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
> 
> 
> End of DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8
> **********************************
> 
Received on Wed Apr 22 2009 - 19:57:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:10 UTC