auDA indicates to Bottle they have breached and that a remedy is sought. They indicate a mutually satisfactory solution is sought that addresses their concerns, failing which  de-accreditation is the only option. They indicate they would accept a substantial public fine by agreement. The parties agree the terms behind closed doors and then communicate the outcome to the market.

The result? auDA gets their pound of flesh (and the cash), a signal is sent to the Registrar community that breaches carry a meaningful penalty, Bottle has a hard think about how they do business in the future, registrants (if they care) consider the penalty in selecting a registrar, so Bottle has both a financial and a market penalty.

Most regulators work this way. Very few undertake de-accreditation. It does happen, but is a really dramatic, irreversible and damaging outcome - and potentially costly if it results in legal action as this has. Despite the Court's findings, there are many customers of Bottle who are presumably happy with the service they received and would have preferred no disruption. What was at issue was Bottle's compliance (in auDA's and now the Court's determination). There has to be a middle ground between doing nothing and destroying the business which involves peoples lives and fortunes and should only be considered in the most egregious of breaches. This may be such a situation - auDA clearly thinks it is - but I'm not so sure this is the best outcome.

Regards,

Larry Bloch 

Direct: ???????????? (02) 9934-0536
Mobile: ?????????? (0411) 545-118
Personal Fax: ? (02)? 8079-0741


-----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 Rod Keys
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:05 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy

Ron,
Larry says a fine is the answer I don't know how a private not for
profit company can impose a fine I thought that was the role of
government to pass those sort of laws. Am I missing something here?
Rod


Ron Stark wrote:
> Larry,  judging  by your many comments on Nick Bolton you see nothing remiss
> in his (or, more accurately, a Company he owns and runs) actions.  One could
> easily extrapolate that and draw the conclusion that there's a substantial
> ethical and moral alignment between you both on the way you conduct
> business.
> 
> 
> Given that you've emerged as something of a fan, why don't you offer him a
> directorship and senior mamagement role in one of your businesses?  
> 
> Ron Stark
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+ronstark=snapsite.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Larry
> Bloch
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 10:44
> To: Kim Davies
> Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
> 
> ...and Kim, we (as in Netregistry) have been threatened with
> de-accreditation a number of times by auDA over matters that didn't warrant
> it. Silly, trivial procedural things that are obviously going to be resolved
> without waving the "big stick". As a matter of style, I personally feel you
> wave the big stick only at moment before you strike, not as a threat to
> enforce compliance. That's called a bullying autocracy.
> 
> Whether Bottle's actions warrant de-accreditation or not is what the court
> determined. They determined that auDA had both the right and acted in good
> faith in doing so. They did not find that de-accreditation was the
> appropriate action (as compared to a financial penalty, or enforced training
> or a gulag-style labor camp).
> 
> I have maintained from the start that auDA's actions were reckless and
> damaged the stability of .au in contravention of auDA's objective as the
> confusion to registrants (remember them) could have been easily mitigated by
> having this court action before hooking them into the bunfight. That's the
> main point here. As it happens, I think a - say - $500k fine would have been
> a more appropriate penalty - and more in keeping with maintaining stability.
> A fine would send a strong message, would have resulted in modified
> behaviour, and would not have damaged an asset and the employment and
> service it provides.
> 
> Moreover, given auDA's reasons for de-accreditation, it is clear the issue
> they have is with Nick Bolton and the actions he has personally undertaken.
> So now we have the position that Bottle can't be a registrar because it's
> run by Nick, yet Domain Central can, despite being run by Nick. That seems a
> little weird.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Larry Bloch 
> 
> Direct:              (02) 9934-0536
> Mobile:            (0411) 545-118
> Personal Fax:   (02)  8079-0741
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 8:30 AM
> To: Larry Bloch
> Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Bottle breaches policy
> 
> Quoting Larry Bloch on Tuesday May 12, 2009:
> | 
> | I'm on Bottle's side on this because it is bullying tactics, its
> arbitrary,
> | and it could be any one of us next. I'm not standing up for the rights of
> | downtrodden registrars, I'm standing for the right of my business to not
> be
> | threatened by de-accreditation (and ensuing oblivion) over a matter that
> | doesn't warrant it. I'm pretty bemused as to why I'm the only one. Surely
> | you don't want a regulator that destroys businesses and employment with
> | little notice for questionable reasons just because it can.
> 
> Apparently the Victorian Supreme Court thinks it was warranted.
> "[Bottle] demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to the effect of
> credit card fraud upon its victims." I am no lawyer but that sounds like
> pretty strong language.
> 
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/422.html
> 
> kim
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/