Thanks Michael,

After submitting the document, I was contacted by DCITA as described on this
list. I modified a number of paragraphs to satisfy their lawyers. To be fair
- the more I wrote the submission, the more heated I became, so it's
probably fair to say the original draft contained some 'borderline'
defamatory content. I was assured by DCITA their intent was to avoid
litigation rather than to censor comment or content, which is fair enough.

There is clearly a spectum of opinion on auDA. NetRegistry's thoughts are in
the public domain. My hope is that Government is true to its word and works
to reduce red tape and bureaucratic bloat in the interests of consumers and
small business efficiency.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Purse
Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2007 5:17 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] DCITA Review - submissions posted

I'll also point out, I almost completely agree with NetRegistry's
submission.

Well written, NetRegistry!

On 1/18/07, Michael Purse <pursey&#167;gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I'm concerned that DCITA has blacked out text in those 
> submissions. I'm unsure as to the motivation behind it.
>
> On 1/18/07, Ian Smith <smithi&#167;nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Josh Rowe wrote:
> >  > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 07:12:34PM +0000, Kim Davies wrote:
> >  > > Quoting Josh Rowe on Tuesday January 09, 2007:
> >  > > |
> >  > > | The submissions to the DCITA "Review of the structure and  > 
> > > | operation of the .au Internet domain" have been posted here:
> >  > > | http://shorterlink.com/?7924AT  > >  > > I find it surprising 
> > that there weren't more public comments from  > > registrars. There 
> > is only a comment from Melbourne IT made public.
> >  > >
> >  > > kim
> >  >
> >  > There are now two extra submissions on the web site, the first 
> > from
> >
> > When did these turn up?  Thanks for the notice; I'd have missed them.
> >
> >  > NetRegistry and the second from the "Domain Industry Assocation"
> >  > which says it represents the following registrars:
> >  >
> >  > Anchor Systems Pty Ltd
> >  > AussieHQ Pty Ltd
> >  > Australian Style Pty Ltd trading as Bottle Domains  > Discount 
> > Domain Name Services Pty Ltd  > Distribute.IT Pty Ltd trading as 
> > Click'n Go!
> >  > Domain Central Pty Ltd
> >  > Domain Directors Pty Ltd
> >  > Enetica Pty Ltd
> >  > Explorer Domains Pty Ltd
> >  > IntaServe Pty Ltd
> >  > Melbourne IT Ltd
> >  > NetRegistry Pty Ltd
> >  > Sublime IP Pty Ltd trading as GoDomains  > TPP Domains Pty Ltd 
> > trading as TPP Internet  > Wobygong Pty Ltd  >  > Both of these 
> > submissions have some text blacked out.
> >
> > Probably about you :)
> >
> > I find it interesting that Melbourne IT's submission is considerably 
> > at odds with these two closely idealogically aligned submissions in 
> > many respects, though I suppose they must have signed off on the latter?
> >
> > Cheers, Ian
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/