[DNS] Bottle breaches policy

[DNS] Bottle breaches policy

From: Anand Kumria <wildfire§progsoc.uts.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 01:46:02 +0100
Hi Kim,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Kim Davies <kim&#167;cynosure.com.au> wrote:

> Quoting Anand Kumria on Wednesday September 30, 2009:
> |
> | Whilst I have mainly noted auDAs failings in my summary; I can not say
> that
> | Australian Style comes out very well. The fact that they took advantage
> of a
> | court-ordered injunction to transfer domains to a related company speaks
> | volumes.
> However I sense from your analysis you think auDA is predominantly at
> fault here.

Well, I do not believe that the "2007 incident" should have been taken into
account. A security vulnerability is not a security breach (my front door is
open -- a vulnerability -- someone enters my front door without my knowledge
-- a breach).

We are then left with two organisations disagreeing on what a security
vulnerability and a security breach is (and auDA taking different stances
where it suits them as noted in the court transcript).

We have two organisations who agree on a way forward but then:
 one of them decides to thumb their nose at the court
 the other decides to thumb their nose at the public

> | As it is auDA actions actually *undermined* the security and confidence
> of
> | registrants of the .au domain system.
> How so? If my registrar had security remedies and took the actions
> Bottle did, I think I'd be rather happy a regulator was taking action.


So the loss of three words in an email, as noted in the court documents,
would have materially affected you?

How so?

Note: Bottle did not take any particular actions -- so I am not sure why you
mentioned them. Australian Style certainly did. Was the conflation

> | Why bother when a gTLD offers none of these problems.
> ICANN de-accredits registrars in gTLD space too. Just ask a RegisterFly
> customer. What's the difference?
You believe that the owners of Australian Style are were engaged in an
attempt to determine the status of the companies assets, like RegisterFly?

Or, do you believe that ICANN and RegisterFly were able to have their
bickering behind closed doors until things were decided in favour of ICANN?

Or, did you decide to ignore the problems that I enumerated that auDA caused
which undermined the .au space?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20091001/a70c11af/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Wed Sep 30 2009 - 17:46:02 UTC

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