I agree with Don, every other registered form of  important  property is
administrated by the Government.
And so it should be with Domain names.
We are only going to get one chance to get this right for a long time to
come, especially while the current process is in review.
The ACCC does create policy it simply enforces policy.
The policies that have  been put in place to date are clearly inadequate,
that's why there are certain people performing mail-outs
that reek of small time ploys of deception performed in most used car lots.

How can we be seen to be acting responsibly as an Industry when there is no
Code of Practice in place ?

I think it's time for the contributors to this forum to become proactive.

Suggestions of libel and defamation show that this matter is now escalating
to a point where everyone involved here needs to meet.

Larry and Chris ( btw Chris you still have responded to my questions from 3
weeks ago ), would you be happy to meet in a public forum with the rest of
your industry brethren ?
We will need to invite someone from Government and the ACCC of course.

Who else out there wants closure on this matter? That's the only reason that
mud gets 'slung' isn't it ?




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Cameron [mailto:donc§mudgeeab.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 17 August 2001 12:58 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] ING charging $250 non-refundable for .BIZ and .INFO


Hi Kim,

I disagree. Most businesses operate under industry agreements, even though
these may be labelled under a variety of different titles. A MoU (memorandum
of understanding), CoEBP (code of ethical business practice) and others
depending on the industries governing bodies.

The point being, most Australian industries set standards for participation,
usually publicised and promoted by some form of accreditation (CPA et-all).

If "we" have allowed businesses to transact on the .au namespace without
first stipulating an appropriate code of conduct (as most industries do),
then it is "us" who are at fault. You can hardly accuse a company of
potentially breaching a code of conduct, if no such code exists.

Suggesting that the only means of recourse is a big-stick approach after the
event (ACCC intervention), not only acknowledges the current management
failings within the industry, but also actively encourages industry
participants to "push the boundaries". Far better if companies are
accredited (or not) based on their acceptance of a common code of conduct
prior to acceptance as an industry participant.

Rgds, Don


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 350 subscribers.
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.