I concur with the point about needing and auDRP and that it should have been
operational before the go-live date

Phil Wright


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael-Pappas [mailto:auda§michael-pappas.com]
Sent: Monday, 8 July 2002 10:45 AM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] Very Concerned RE Trademark and DIP issues with
'Generic Actions'


Adam,

>>It would also seem that the 'new system' does not yet have a dispute
>>resolution policy stated and therefore offers no approach??
>
> Because auDA felt there was no need for a dispute resolution policy and
> as  Michale Pappas has indicated the system is perfect enough not to
> require  one - in a hurry.

I never said such a thing, please don't use me in your arguments when you
get it so wrong and so far off the mark.....
There needs to be an auDRP and should have been before go live.

We were talking about state.au names in previous discussions, which I
think is a very bad idea and very restrictive the way you mentioned. I
mentioned nothing on the state of resolvtions in the current system other
than pointing out that there is reference to an auDRP that does not exist.
Regards,

Michael-Pappas.