[DNS] Bottle breaches policy

[DNS] Bottle breaches policy

From: Kim Davies <kim§cynosure.com.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:44:00 -0700
Quoting Anand Kumria on Thursday October 01, 2009:
| So the loss of three words in an email, as noted in the court documents,
| would have materially affected you?
| How so?

I must have missed the part where the issue is solely about three words
vanishing from a single email. My reading of this document (which
perhaps was not as thorough as yours) is auDA's reaction was the result
of a pattern of behaviour over a longer period, rather than discrete

Even so, those "three words" I think fundamentally change the response
by the consumer. I think there is a fundamental and tangible difference
between a company I deal with telling me there is a risk my credit card
info has been comprimised, and it not.

To try and draw an analogy, if I walked into a store I frequent
regularly and they said "be careful, we were burglarised", it is a
rather different proposition than "be careful, we were buglarised, and
that included your credit card details".

Why is it not concerning to you that customers are not informed their
credit card details are at risk?

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

I believe it is Australian Style trading as Bottle Domains, but maybe I am wrong
here. What is the distinction you are trying to make? Everyone on this list,
and the media reports, refer to them as Bottle.

| > | Why bother when a gTLD offers none of these problems.
| >
| 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?

We are talking about the loss of consumer confidence from a registrar
being de-accredited, and you summed by by saying that "Why bother
when a gTLD offers none of these problems." I am saying that gTLD
registrars get de-accredited too. Clearly each case of de-accreditation
is different and you can hardly draw direct parallels from one to
another. Each time a de-accreditation event happens it introduces
instability, but it is not as though such events do not happen in gTLD

If rather you are implying ICANN is much better at its compliance
activities, I think that is something different. In that case, yay for

Received on Thu Oct 01 2009 - 08:44:00 UTC

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