At the outset let me apologise to the readership of this mailing list for this
long posting.

I am disappointed that Vic, at Australia's own CIA, who is not a new entrant
in the domain name game and is not new to discussions regarding the role and
responsibilities of Melbourne IT continues to disseminate misinformation and
misleading, unfounded allegations (copied below).

Let's start with the last point in Vic's e-mail regarding the current status
of the CoRE gTLD initiative. Melbourne IT is NOT accepting preregistrations,
as was clearly reported in The Australian newspaper on February 3rd (nearly a
month ago!). Perhaps Vic doesn't read the Australian - fair enough - so he
would have gone to our website at www.melbourneit.com.au where he would have
found a clear explanation of the current situation. Still no preregistrations.

Melbourne IT did advise all of its account holders on January 30 this year
that on the following Monday we would open our preregistration queues. That
night the US Department of Commerce released the Ira Magaziner paper which
fundamentally threatened the imminent launch of the CoRE gTLDs. Talk about bad
timing!!

On Monday February 2nd all our account holders received notification that due
to the change in circumstances Melbourne IT could not ethically continue with
preregistrations at that time.

Still, as of this writing, we are waiting to see what turn events take. Once
we are convinced of the viability and high probability of a new set of TLDs
then Melbourne IT will respond quickly to allow our customers to take
advantage of the benefits of preregistration. Since we haven't had
preregistrations yet it is a mystery to me how Vic can claim that he knows the
terms and conditions of our eventual process. I invite Vic to explain his
claimed intimate knowledge of our plans in this forum (word to the wise Vic,
don't think old information is still accurate information).

What about the other claims regarding a Shared Registry System for com.au and
introducing new SLDs for .au?

Melbourne IT is not the current arbiter of the com.au domain licensing, we are
only a licensee. If someone has a problem with the current situation then I
suggest that person make a convincing case to the licensor. Regardless of the
entry of new licensees Melbourne IT will continue to deliver the most
efficient and reliable service we can. That same service that has Australia's
top 19 ISPs giving our customer service a satisfactioin rating over 80%!!
[Independent survey data - STM Consulting] That same survey also indicated
that Melbourne IT out performs any other domain name vendor used by those ISPs
anywhere in the world.

Vic's question "..how many domains have MIT served out in the last year?"
seems deliberately misleading. Vic knows very well that we only operate in the
com.au domain. So Vic the answer must be "Just one".

As for new SLDs in .au Vic should be addressing this concern to ADNA as
Melbourne IT has no authority to address this issue.

When considering the veiled allegations Vic has made regarding the com.au zone
file I guess he wasn't referring to the connect.com registry that operates
net.au. However, like them, we have no control over the zone file itself.
Melbourne IT is compelled under its license to make our registration data
available for periodic zone file updates. These occur when Munnari (the zone
file host computer) pulls the new data down from our server, a process
controlled by the com.au licensor not Melbourne IT. What's more we do not have
the inclination, time or resources to waste effort trying to sabotage a
particular domain name when we serve over 35,000 customers with guaranteed
performance and the highest standards of business ethics.

So Vic you already have your wish - the com.au zone file is "under the control
of a neutral party" as you requested. Thus your concern about "one registry
enforcing its rules on another registry" is also misguided. Besides I am sure
you are really more concerned about registrars enforcing their rules.
Registries, by their very nature, are essentially independent unless there are
multiple registries for a single domain (I can't think of such a case or why
you would want it so but in such a situation we would be right there with you
arguing for independence of commercial operations between the registries).

As for CoRE (you refer to gTLD) and their SRS please don't overlook the fact
that Melbourne IT is a founding member of CoRE. We have invested our own time,
money, effort and resources in realising a basically policy-free set of TLDs
and making them available to all Australians. What's more Melbourne IT is not
alone in this as there are three other Australian companies who have had the
guts, foresight and determination to be key players in this international
initiative. Think about it! 88 companies world wide have voted with their
dollars and time to support increased competition and freedom of choice in
domain names.  I am surprised that, with his passion, Vic has not had CIA play
a more prominent role in this initiative.

A very few people, like Vic, have not been happy with their dealings with
Melbourne IT and for that we are truly sorry. However, we understand that we
cannot serve every customer the way they think things should be done (ever
tried getting VicRoads, the registrar of marriage licenses or even your local
council dog license registry to do things your way not theirs?).

The rules and guidelines used by Melbourne IT as a registrar for com.au are
the result of industry consultation and negotiation with the com.au licensor.
Our license binds us to accept and follow those rules to maintain the value
and recognition afforded one of the fastest growing domains in the world.
Growing faster than .com, com.au ranks number seven in the world by population
of domain names and is the second largest country specific SLD after co.uk.
Our commitment to fair treatment for all is absolute but that doesn't mean we
will cave-in to every critic who thinks the system under which we are licensed
is unfair to them.

I hope this posting has clarified these critical points and that this
readership will not be distracted in the future by continued misinformation.
Anyone with specific questions is invited to contact me directly or via this
forum. Thank you for your patience and your time.

Regards,

Jordan

_______________________________________
Jordan Green
Commercial Manager - gTLD
Melbourne IT
207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, 3053  AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61.3.9344-9297        Fax: +61.3.9347-9473
E-mail:  jordan§melbourneit.com.au
URL:    http://www.melbourneit.com.au
_______________________________________



>From: Deus Ex Machina <vicc&#167;cia.com.au>
>Subject: DNS: SRS mechanism
>To: dns&#167;iia.net.au
>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:40:12 +1100 (EST)
>Sender: owner-dns&#167;magna.com.au
>Reply-To: dns&#167;iia.net.au
>
>
>given that the current unhealthy situation with domain names
>is to be rectified and that a shared registry system is to be
>implemented. the shared registry sytem must be worked out in
>such a way that will be fair to new registries. MITs initial
>reponce to me was to go away as they werent about to give any help
>to any newcommers. I think this is a very poor attitude from MIT.
>
>neither do I think implementing any new domains under .au prior to
>competition can be seen as anything but self serving. so
>just how many domains have MIT served out in the last year?
>
>the prefered option would be to have the .com.au zone file
>under the control of a neutral party to ensure that updates
>are carried out promptly and that applications are not accidently
>delaid to the bias of any perticular registry.
>
>nor can we have one registry enforcing its rules on another registry.
>the keeper of the zone files must be completly rule free in this regard
>and allow all incoming updates that dont break lexical/syntactic rules.
>
>gTLD have a shared registry system, if it hasnt been sunk yet.
>perhaps this could be used, or at least provide some experience
>towards building one. either way bulding one doesnt sound like
>a hard problem.
>
>speaking of gTLD I am also shocked and alarmed that MIT is selling
>and encouraging people to bid for these domains given the real
>possibility that the system will not go ahead. nowhere in the blurb
>I was sent is there anything that says what the refund policy is,
>or the fact gTLD had a very real chance of not happening.
>this is disgraceful business practice.
>
>Vic
>
>