>Its pretty silly blaming the directors of auDA for not removing a particular
>director - the directors don't have the authority.  The members do - and
>they're the appropriate group to do so, since they elected the directors.


CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 SECT 203D
203D Removal by members--public companies
Resolution for removal of director
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s203d.html


Don't know your Corporations law huh?


>If anyone thinks a particular director should go, then they should initiate
>the process.  It doesn't take much to become an auDA member.

The Directors can initiate the process.  The Law is written to enable 
that.  Clearly the Directors don't feel that the person brought into 
question should be removed.

Very interesting isn't it.

So the Directors who purport to represent the "interests of the public" 
refuse to take action under Corporations Law allowing them to resolve to 
remove a Director with whom the "public" (that being the people those other 
directors represent) are not happy with.

Interesting when you look at it carefully.

> > I don't think the remedy Instra gave when auDA first took them
> > to task over www.aunic.net.au is good enough (that is, the link and the
> > top sentence of the web page.)
>
>It might be helpful if everyone understood the underlying legal principle
>that individuals or entities who have been disadvantaged by deceptive
>practices are the ones that can take action.

Or in the case of auDA who are endorsed by the Federal Government to ACT ON 
BEHALF OF and for the GOOD of the public, can take action thereof.

Clearly auDA is NOT self-regulating the industry.

auDA is allowing the industry to regulate itself.  There is a VERY 
significant difference, legally and ethically, not to mention morally.

I'm glad we finally go to that point.

>In general, if you're unaffected by someone else's actions, then you can't 
>complain about them being deceptive.

No one has said anything about Trade Practices.  auDA has been criticized 
for allowing the POTENTIAL (read it as contributory negligence) for a 
consumer to be mislead.

When i find a consumer who purchases through this process and suddenly 
feels mislead I'll be sure they get a copy of THIS message and thread, and 
greatly encouraged to bring auDA to account through the courts.  I'll be 
watching very carefully the ACCC to ensure they too - ultimately - do the 
right thing.

>If you think about it you'll see that its a pretty sensible legal basis - 
>otherwise all sorts of people would be able to make frivolous claims about 
>other entities even if those making the claim were unaffected.

There is not frivolous claim here. auDA has itself admitted there could be 
a chance of confusion.  That's enough to bind it for contributory 
negligence, or being a conspirator to a deceptive practise.

>So if a consumer believes they have been disadvantaged in some way by
>deception caused by the similarity between http://www.auregistry.net.au/ and
>http://www.ausregistry.net.au/, they have grounds to take action.

Yes, but only AFTER they are a victim.  Why is our society so fixated on 
CURE, rather than PREVENTION.

We claim to VACCINATE children in order to PREVENT illness and death, yet 
when it comes to the consumers hip pocket, we can only offer them a CURE, 
if and only if the consumer has more HIP POCKET to pay for the cure.

What ever happened to PREVENTION - which in my eyes, is a paramount part of 
"self-regulation."

>And if a Registrar believes they have been disadvantaged in some way by
>deception caused by the similarity between http://www.auregistry.net.au/ and
>http://www.ausregistry.net.au/, they have grounds to take action.

Again, a CURE process.  A costly legal process where the winner is the one 
with the deepest pockets, or the first to call for surety under the Court's 
rules.

LEGAL is for the rich, not for the disadvantaged.  Legal action is to 
establish law, we do NOT have a system of JUSTICE in Australia, we have a 
system of LAW.

People always think that COURTS are for justice.  WRONG.

>But it's much harder for auDA or AusRegistry to claim they've been
>disadvantaged, as those two entities loose no business / revenue due to the
>existence of www.auregistry.net.au.

Ahhh, so what you are now saying is that to auDA and Ausregistry, it 
doesn't matter whether a consumer is mislead to make a purchase because at 
the end of the day, the monopoly position of auDA and Ausregistry sees the 
transaction.

So in other words, auDA and Ausregistry have conspired to price fix and 
control the sale and distribution of a product from the source of manufacture.

Ouch!

Want to try another line of argument, before I try and encourage all those 
not happy with auDA and Ausregistry to seek LEGAL resolution.  (I stress 
TRY because trying to gather public and industry support beyond joining a 
mail list is normally a waste of time.)


> > Clearly auDA wasn't "fast enough" to BUY the names in ALL the name spaces
> > it needed as it's own policies and politics demands.
>
>auDA sensibly didn't try to buy the all the versions of auDA or AUNIC in all
>the .au namespace.  There's no benefit to auDA in doing so.  Registering
>every version of a domain name is a real 'loser's' strategy - but favourite
>of those with a flawed understanding of the realities of domain name
>dynamics.

However, auDA allowing others to register versions is in fact agreeing to 
allow them to mislead the consumer.

Innit it odd.