On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM,  <info&#167;enigmaticminds.com.au> wrote:
> Yet again this highlights the glaring hole in auDA policy to address
> disputes arising from decisions made by auDA, such as deleting a domain

[snip]

> provide a way for people to dispute decisions made by auDA. The ombudsman
> would not get involved in other disputes such as the auDRP but only in those
> that have arisen because of a decision auDA made, such as deleting a domain
> or terminating a registrar.
> auDA easily makes enough money each year to cover the cost of this, it would
> equate to only cents per year per domain. Rather than funding some of their
> questionable projects auDA should instead look at directing some of these
> surplus funds into something more productive such as a Domain Name
> Ombudsman.

Generally, Ombudsman are for the general public to point out problems
they have had with suppliers; e.g. the Telephone Industry Ombudsman,
the Banking Ombudsman, etc.

It would be unusual for one to exist solely to handle such a small
number of customers (registrars).

Whilst you are advocating for an Ombudsman, how many decisions does
auDA make per year which are contested? If we are talking one or two,
then I suspect that the cost of having an independant ombudsman is not
worth it.

Why would it not be simpler for the auDA registrar acceptance criteria
to specify that both parties in a dispute go through standard
mediation systems, like those suggested by the Federal Court?

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/mediation/whodoes.html

Should mediation not settle things -- you can always fall back on the courts.

Anand