All,

The last comments I will make on this list about the email Josh received
follow. They are somewhat of an appeal to rational common sense.

1. Read the email he quoted. It's content is clearly not a solicitation of
business in any sense. Its not the kind of email you get from an unknown
sender soliciting the recipient to respond. It is an information pack
(original in HTML, hence the weird format) sent to individuals who request
said information.

2. Furthermore, Josh, and the email address it was sent to, were not the
intended recipient. This was an honest mistake on NetRegistry's part, for
which I apologise to Josh/Australia Post. However, I fail to see how such an
email can be considered unsolicited commercial advertising if it was not
actually intended for the recipient. After all, spam/UCE _is_ intended for
the recipient (even if they don't want/ask/expect it). Once doesn't consider
postal mail sent to an incorrect address to be commercial solicitation of
the recipient.

3. If NetRegistry was indeed abusing the AUNIC data and sending spam, where
is the chorus of "I received one too" we so commonly see in that scenario?

4. Lastly (and again), NetRegistry does not spam, send UCE, or indeed send
email to recipients that have not indicated an interest in receiving
information. We operate a strict Opt In policy. Mistakes do occur - to us
all - and occasionally a request to be removed from a list is not actioned
for various reasons (unmatched email address for instance). But our policy
is Opt In and it is enforced.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo§auda.org.au]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 11:22
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] ING charging $250 non-refundable for .BIZ and .INFO


Peter,

Jo Lim has responded to your first point re privacy. Regarding your other
questions:

2. Whilst it may be technically possible, to do so would be a material
breach of the agreement under which they are providing the hosting services.

3. Yes. And the tenders were evaluated independently and not by auDA.

4. My preliminary checks indicate that NetRegistry's explanation is correct.
However, at present, Josh has raised an issue, Larry has responded and Josh
has now asked for further clarification. I assume that Larry will be
responding to that as soon as possible. Then, if Josh wishes to pursue the
matter further or is not satisfied with the explanation, no doubt he will
contact me.

Regards

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
ceo§auda.org.au
+61-3-9226-9495
www.auda.org.au


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ostenberg [mailto:peterost§start.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2001 17:07
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: Fw: [DNS] ING charging $250 non-refundable for .BIZ and .INFO


Chris Disspain, CEO, auDA,


In light of recent list discussions in relation to information held on
the AUNIC database hosted for auDA by the commercial entity
NetRegistry Pty Ltd, may I refer to the following reference:

INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT 2000
"PART 11A--INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT 2000 SCHEDULE 1
THE INFORMATION PRIVACY PRINCIPLES
4. Principle 4--Data Security
4.1 An organisation must take reasonable steps to protect the personal
information it holds from misuse and loss and from unauthorised
access, modification or disclosure.

Clarification is required by community members and sought from you as
CEO of auDA with respect to the following:

1. Kindly advise the specific reasonable steps auDA have taken to
comply with the Information Privacy Act 2000 in protecting data held
on the AUIC database from misuse, loss, or unauthorised access.

2. In their capacity as host is it possible that NetRegistry have
access to bulk current consumer details residing on the AUNIC data
base over and above that which is publically available via interfaces
such as whois and aunicstatus ?

3. As registrant and registrar of au.com was any possible conflict of
interest investigated prior to acceptance by auDA of the AUNIC hosting
tender put forward by the commercial entity NetRegistry Pty Ltd?

Furthermore, regarding your investigation following Josh Rowe's
correspondence dated 16th August 2001, has such an investigation
reached completion? and is there a time frame as to when publication
of the resultant outcome may be expected? Did NetRegistry obtain AUNIC
data in an improper manner and use it for advertising purposes
including, but not limited to, unsolicited emails? In fairness to
NetRegistry and all .au registrants one would expect this issue to be
clarified and documented by auDA as soon as practicable.

A point of reference:
"Key Objectives of auDA Interim Board Version 1.1"
Preamble of the au Domain Administration
Taking the view that the Internet Domain Name System is a public
asset, and that the .au ccTLD is under the sovereign control of the
Commonwealth of Australia, auDA will administer the .au ccTLD for the
benefit of the Australian community.


Cheers,

Peter Ostenberg





__________________________________________________________________
Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 353 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.


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 351 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.