Warwick, to put things in a little perspective, I have seem no more that 10
disputes are they were names like (but not necessarily) coke, telstra,
yellowpages etc. Really quite easy to resolve.

I accepts all your concerns expressed below, but the sledgehammer is still a
little large for the nut.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Rothnie, Warwick [mailto:Warwick.Rothnie§msj.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 18:02
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: dispute resolution policies


Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Confidential communication

Thanks for your explanation, Larry.

Obviously, I am far less well placed than you to assess whether or not
the number of disputes in .au.com is minimal.  Taking your explanation
as a starting point, however, I guess I have three main concerns.

First, from whichever side of the fence I am sitting on, I do not think
that the options of do nothing, suspend or terminate (with a possibility
of re-registration) are adequate remedies in themselves.

Secondly, I am not sure that I am as comfortable as you with registrar's
having a discretion to terminate, suspend or do nothing at all.

Thirdly, I am not at all comfortable with the registrar getting paid a
registration fee twice in a case of termination and re-registration.

All three concerns seem to me to give rise to significant risks of moral
hazard for registrars.  Of course, I accept that a registrar should not
just have an obligation willy nilly to do what a complainant wants -
there can no doubt be cases where a complainant is trying it on.
Whatever else might be said about the UDRP, it does have the strengths
that allegations are considered by independent arbiters and transfer can
be ordered.


Warwick Rothnie
Partner
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
Fax (61 3) 9643 5999


-----Original Message-----
From: larry§netregistry.au.com [mailto:larry§netregistry.au.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 5:29 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: dispute resolution policies


Warwick,

In all cases I am aware of, the 'cybersquatter' was made to see the
inevitability of the outcome and voluntarily gave up rights to the name.

The brand holder was informed that the name had been suspended or
de-registered (depending on their requirement stated in their legal
representations) and that it was again free to be registered. If they
desired to protect themselves, they could chose to register the name
themselves, which some did and some did not. Such re-registration
attracted
the regular registration fees.

NetRegistry has been proactive in dissuading its au.com registrants from
cybersquatting practices. We have made potential registrants aware of
the
unlikely positive outcome for them and have by and large educated our
customers prior to them making a costly mistake.

In fact, we direct our customers to our Terms an Conditions that
explicitly
state that NetRegistry ca and will suspend and de-register names at its
sole
discretion if it believes that there is a clear case of cybersquatting
(and
in my experience there are very few grey cases), so he number of
incidents
has been minimal. In principle, we attempt to uphold the rights to the
big
guy over the little guy in this general situation, because it is usually
the
little guy trying to extort or take advantage of the big guy. Tat has
always
seemed sensible to me an I'm happy to say that global best practice in
registry operations supports this view, by and large.

Clearly de-registering a name and making it available again doesn't
provide
the protection a brand holder is looking for. I would argue the cost of
a
legal letter is more than the cost of the registration, but this may
also
not be satisfactory. If the incidence were sufficient to warrant it, I
suppose we could place a note on the name that it has been the subject
of a
dispute and a new owner should be made aware of it, but to be honest,
the
incidence is so infrequent it hasn't been a major issue to date.

Having said that, so long as the cost burden on NR is not too great, I'd
be
interested to hear from your side of the fence what you would like to
see in
place.

Regards

Larry Bloch
Chief Executive Officer
____________________________________________
NetRegistry     http://www.netregistry.au.com
Tel: +61 2 9699 6099 | Fax: +61 2 9699 6088
PO Box 270 Broadway NSW   2007 Australia



-----Original Message-----
From: Rothnie, Warwick [mailto:Warwick.Rothnie§msj.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 16:50
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: dispute resolution policies


Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Confidential communication

Larry

Sorry for the infelicity of expression, but your guess was right: I am
principally interested in "cybersquatting".

Does "always in favour of the brandholder" mean that the name was
actually transferred to them?  And did the brandholder have to pay new
registration fees or a transfer fee?



Warwick Rothnie
Partner
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
Fax (61 3) 9643 5999


-----Original Message-----
From: larry§netregistry.au.com [mailto:larry§netregistry.au.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 4:00 PM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: dispute resolution policies


Warwick,

For the resolution of which disputes? I mean, in what context?

If you mean au.com, then that is something we can take off-line to
discuss,
as I'm not sure list members are interested (although I am happy to
discuss
it on-line). Certainly our existing DRP has proven exceptionally
effective
to date with all 'cybersquatting' disputes brought to our attention
resolved
without resort to litigation by direct involvement of NetRegistry (and
always in favour of the brand holder, I might add).

Regards

Larry Bloch
Chief Executive Officer
____________________________________________
NetRegistry     http://www.netregistry.au.com
Tel: +61 2 9699 6099 | Fax: +61 2 9699 6088
PO Box 270 Broadway NSW   2007 Australia



-----Original Message-----
From: Rothnie, Warwick [mailto:Warwick.Rothnie§msj.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 14:07
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: [DNS] RE: dispute resolution policies


Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Confidential communication

Hi Larry

With auDA's approval of a dispute resolution policy substantially based
on the ICANN UDRP and a number of ccTLDs just simply adopting the UDRP,
can we look forward to NetRegistry adopting an effective dispute
resolution process like the UDRP or the auDA approved process?

Kind regards

Warwick Rothnie
Partner
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
Fax (61 3) 9643 5999


-----Original Message-----
From: larry§netregistry.au.com [mailto:larry§netregistry.au.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 11:49 AM
To: dns§auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] ING charging $250 non-refundable for .BIZ and .INFO


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.


--
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.

--
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.


--
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.

--
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.


--
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.

--
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.