Disspain hinted at introducing some sort of cost-effective appeals option where domain owners who have had their names arbitrarily deleted can seek judgement from a third party at an independent hearing of some sort. This was during his talk at TRAFFIC last year. I wonder whether this has progressed or whether it was simply lip service to try and placate the increasingly large number of aggrieved domain owners. Unfortunately I tend to think this is the case and as always, the only way to defend a domain name worth will be to spend thousands in the federal court. Because 99.9% of domains are worth less than this, it's a hopeless recourse. David Lye www.netfleet.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org] > On Behalf Of dns-request§dotau.org > Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 5:00 AM > To: dns§dotau.org > Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8 > > Send DNS mailing list submissions to > dns§dotau.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > dns-request§dotau.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > dns-owner§dotau.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of DNS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Anand Kumria) > 2. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Brenden Cruikshank) > 3. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (info§enigmaticminds.com.au) > 4. Re: Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on (for the > moment) (Larry Bloch) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:52:12 +0100 > From: Anand Kumria <wildfire§progsoc.uts.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > <971f65790904220252q677df54fi9927a0c32353ad21§mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:02:07 +1000 > From: Brenden Cruikshank <brenden.cruikshank§spiritconnect.com.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > > <4F2264317949EC4F8DC3715E162EA00F2997AE7D46§wgeeb001.hosted-pr > oducts.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Something is certainly required none the less, be it an > Ombudsman or something else... > > The chaos created last week, plus the current economic > downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§do > tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria > Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the moment) > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:16:48 +1000 > From: info§enigmaticminds.com.au > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: > <7C5FD01D-2C1E-46FB-AF57-54B29F65097C§enigmaticminds.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > This is not just limited to registrars but for any person > that is effected by one of auDA's arbitrary decisions - i.e. > anyone with a domain could be effected. As there are over 1M > .au domains registered, the scope is quite large. > > I would estimate that hundreds, if not thousands, of domains > are subject to auDA's arbitrary decisions each year, with no > recourse for the people affected unless they have the time > and money to take it through the courts. In most cases it's > just not worth it and so they do nothing about it. Hence the > need for an option such as an ombudsman to balance out the > unfettered power of auDA. > > I know of one organisation that had registered many hundreds > of domains and was using them in accordance with auDA's > policies, until one day auDA decided to use their arbitrary > power to delete them all. > It cost the registrant many tens-of-thousands of dollars to > fight this issue and they eventually got to keep the domains. > > If you speak to those high-up in the various registrars, they > could tell you story after story of such arbitrary decisions > by auDA, even decisions which appear completely contradictory. > > Something needs to be done. > > > On 22/04/2009, at 7:52 PM, Anand Kumria wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, > <info§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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:25:17 +1000 > From: "Larry Bloch" <larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains lives on > (for the moment) > To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns§dotau.org> > Message-ID: <000f01c9c33d$0409c3e0$0c1d4ba0$§bloch§netregistry.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi All, > > There is definitely a need for auDA to be accountable to the > community it regulates. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, > and the Bottle affair is clear evidence of that corruption. > > The Board is unfortunately a rubber stamp (I served on it for > years in two stints - I should know) and is captive to > interests that are entirely unaccountable to the community. > > In the end, what this affair sadly demonstrates is that if > the structure is such that the regulator has absolute power > (as in many ways it must) it is perhaps better for it to be a > Government body, because at least then I is in some way > accountable to the electorate and the sensitivities of > politicians to exactly this sort of scandal. > > Whilst the auDA Board may be immune to the feelings expressed > around this issue, Pollies definitely aren't. > > Regards, > > Larry Bloch | CEO | Online Growth Solutions Ltd > > Netregistry | PlanetDomain | NETT Magazine | Hostess > > Direct: 02 9641 8636 > Mobile: 0411 545 118 > Personal Fax: 02 80790741 > Email: larry.bloch§netregistry.com.au > > > T +61 2 9699 6099 | F +61 2 9699 6088| > http://www.netregistry.com.au PO Box 270 Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia > > Domain Names | Email Solutions | Web Hosting | Dedicated > Hosting | eCommerce > | Online Marketing > > > > -----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 Brenden Cruikshank > Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:02 > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the > moment) > > Something is certainly required none the less, be it an > Ombudsman or something else... > > The chaos created last week, plus the current economic > downturn makes me feel .au is unsafe... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§dotau.org > [mailto:dns-bounces+brenden.cruikshank=spiritconnect.com.au§do > tau.org] On Behalf Of Anand Kumria > Sent: 22 April 2009 7:52 PM > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Bolton wins, auDA loses, Bottle Domains > lives on (for the > moment) > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <info§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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DNS mailing list > DNS§dotau.org > http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns > > > End of DNS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8 > ********************************** >Received on Wed Apr 22 2009 - 19:57:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:10 UTC