At 17:59 +1000 24/7/03, Sean Finn wrote:

>Within the realms of reality, the only way Auda can really do something is
>if they find the registrar that is supplying them, and take action at that
>level.

Or auDA could change the policy so that they have some power over
anyone renewing/registering a .AU domain name on behalf of a third
party.

That wouldn't stop Scumbag and Scumbag Pty Ltd from ripping
people off with .COM/NET/ORG registrations. But that would only
increase the value of a .AU domain name.


>The question is (And i have no idea, im not a legal boffin), *is* it
>appropriate to blanket-ban them and get them restrained from registering
>domains,

I reckon so, and would support such a move.


>and if so, what happens to their exising customers,

They don't have customers. They have exploited suckers. These
people will find a legitimate reseller/supplier and live much
more happily ever after.


>who will
>support them when their income stream is removed,

The dole sounds good. Or prison rations. Although I'm sure they
could make money selling lose-weight-fast-and-keep-it-off or similar
schemes.


> and the business collapses?

Excellent outcome. They have caused my business no end of trouble
and I wish the same on theirs.


>Is there sufficient proof and ability to even be able to get
>their banks to stop taking payment, (e.g. that court order thingy) once &
>for all?

I doubt it, unfortunately


>But the question remains, sure they are scamming, BUT, what are the
>implications of stopping them, what is the most extreme level that it can be
>reasonably taken to at this stage, and what actions of stopping them would
>overstep the mark of the nature of the breach.

Something along the lines of a public execution may be overstepping
the mark slightly.

On second thoughts, no it wouldn't. How about a public stoning.
Everyone who received one of their scam letters can redeem it
for a stone at the door.

Heh, or how about death from a million paper cuts, one per letter ;)

 ...R.