Chris,

You were happy to respond to my initial question by saying:

From: Chris Disspain <ceo?auda.org.au>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:57:26 +1000 (EST)

Because they were provisionally accredited before we closed for
applications and have now moved to fully accredited status.

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA


What I think is important for auDA to answer is:

1. Was SafeNames and Domain Bandit appointed resellers of an accredited
registrar for 6 months prior to their application?
2. Where they provisionally accredited for more than 12 months without a
reapplication?
3. If they did reapply, how did this happen during the prohibition on
applications?

It seems impossible that a provisionally accredited registrar who applied
prior to October 2007 could become fully accredited recently, as they MUST
lapse after 12 months and then reapply (which was not possible in October
2008) according to auDA published policy.

What I and I'm sure many others here want to know, is: Has the management of
the accreditation of these two registrars followed auDA's published
guidelines? And it not, why not?

This needs a response. It is not good enough to expect registrars to follow
the rules if auDA flaunts them. We receive sanction for breaking the rules -
even inadvertently. We can only assume - as is reasonable - that a lack of
response from the auDA CEO on these issues is a clear indication that the
rules were not followed.

If no response is forthcoming from the CEO, perhaps the auDA Chair would
like to respond.

Larry