Bruce

I appreciate some of the points you have made in relation to Chris Disspain's
email (in response to mine).  There are a number of points that I'll address
later.  I address some now.

You say: Instead of assuming a process such as generics is rigged, it would be
appropriate to acknowledge that there are still teething problems for all
parties, and we are working together to resolve them.

At the heart of my concerns are competition and consumer issues.

(Any questions of rigging or manipulation of the process is for auDA to address.
Any technical deficiencies in the registry/registrar systems that impeded
competition between consumers and/or registrars is also for auDA to address.
Any questions or deficiencies might also be addressed by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, if complaints were lodged with it.)

I am raising questions about the fairness, equity and consistency in the
application of the policy on eligibility for generic names and consequential
outcomes of the first-come first-served allocation process from a consumer
perspective.

I have done so on the basis of a public admission by a registrar, and claim by
that registrar that other registrars also breached rules.  Also a series of
emails to the DNS list -- with the Subject "[DNS] And The Winner Is!" -- raised
questions about registrations of diverse domain names to individual and related
businesses.

In summary there are issues about policy application, possible technical
deficiencies, implications for competitive processes, consequential outcomes and
any remedies for effected consumers and auDA's willingness to account
transparently and publicly.

These issues may be about perceptions.  Chris's response below -- If auDA
considers it appropriate to make a public statement about any of these matters
it will do so. -- does little to address perceptions and instil confidence in
the industry self-regulatory regime.

Regards

Ian


--
Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant
Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL)

SETEL is a national small business consumer association
advancing the interest of Australian small business
as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin§melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:31 PM
To: 'dns§lists.auda.org.au'
Subject: RE: [DNS] Generic Rigged?

Hello Chris,

Thanks for that response.

I would like to remind the community that the whole registrar/registry system is
still very new.  We have new registrars and a new registry operator.  Most
significant technical systems take at least 6 months to bed down.  We have
currently been in operation since 1 July 2002.  We are all still learning how to
operate in this environment.

Instead of assuming a process such as generics is rigged, it would be
appropriate to acknowledge that there are still teething problems for all
parties, and we are working together to resolve them.  The popularity of
generics names means that there will always be winners and losers.  The gtld
environment has tried a range of approaches to handle the rush on new names -
the simple answer is that none are ideal - every system can be gamed. The
generics rush process is fairer than most.  In the ideal scenario you are simply
entering a gaming style system where your probability of receiving the name is
directly proportional to the number of people that want that particular name.
If we kept having such rushes for names, all players would eventually settle on
a stable approach with that result.  Not long ago, the .biz registry released a
set of popular names, and most registrars ended up with an equal proportion of
those names.  The tiny registrars had a windfall as they were used for their
bandwidth to the registry, and the large registrars suffered a loss as only a
tiny fraction of their normal number of names registered in a day were obtained.
Remember that this is the first time since 1 July 2002 that the AusRegistry has
experienced such a sudden load - the corresponding .com registry has been
getting this load at least once a week since large numbers of domains have been
deleted in recent months.

While I have identified technical deficiencies with AusRegistry's systems since
1 July 2002, I have also experienced a strong willingness to correct these
deficiencies when they are pointed out with methodical technical evidence.
Likewise Melbourne IT's systems have also had some deficiencies and we try to
correct these as soon as they are identified. Melbourne IT has a good working
relationship with AusRegistry.

Using a public forum to expose any little deficiency is not helpful at this
stage, and I think auDA is taking the right response and dealing with registrars
and the registry operator separately.  A more productive environment allows
players to share information privately to quickly resolve the problem, rather
than try to cover up deficiencies for fear of legal action.  Where there is
clear malicious intent or continued transgression, then I would expect a more
public escalation.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo§auda.org.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] FW: [DNS] Generic Rigged?
>
> auDA has investigated or is investigating all matters tat have been
> brought to its attention regarding the generic release. This includes
> complaints against registrants and registrars. All matters are dealt
> with between the individual registrant or registrar and auDA. If auDA
> considers it appropriate to make a public statement about any of these
> matters it will do so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Disspain
> CEO - auDA
> ceo§auda.org.au
> www.auda.org.au
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (366 subscribers.)