Gonna be a big one at Domain8 on Monday...

[pseudonym]

i think that it would be fair that all the occy myth busters at least post in their real names to create a level playing field so david at least knows who he is dealing with.

 

[geodomains]

Maybe, it would be nice that we new who you are as well?

It's a pity this has happened and I'm sure David is regreting how this has turned out.

I guess auda will sort out who's in the right and who's in wrong, I think this is going to be the only way this will be sorted out.

Don

 

[Shaun]

Hi Don,

From reading peoples posts, people have registered complaints with AuDA and I think you are right, this will be the only way to put everybody's mind at ease and I guess an end to this forum thread!

DNTrade has been going gangbusters (record 144 users online yesterday), it was just the other day I was thinking of coming up with a new thread as there hadn't been much on here, how quickly things change!

 

[DavidL]

Maybe, it would be nice that we new who you are as well?

It's a pity this has happened and I'm sure David is regreting how this has turned out.

I guess auda will sort out who's in the right and who's in wrong, I think this is going to be the only way this will be sorted out.

Don

Yeah some regrets. Few people have suggested why on earth didn't we reg the name in another company's name. Reason we didn't is because we didn't feel we have anything to hide.

I guess there's 2 issues. Is it against policy? is it unethical? auDA will sort out the first and the second... well that's up to each individual's opinion.

I don't actually think someone using a registrar to snap up domains for themselves is unethical per se.

However it's not good business sense for us either. we'd much rather make money from other people registering them (one way or another) and then hoping they end up selling them at some stage making us more money

All decent dropped names being grabbed by a sole party would stifle the market. I think you all know how hard we've worked to create that market.

 

[Rhythm]

All decent dropped names being grabbed by a sole party would stifle the market.

Expired Domain Drop Market is already stifled. Has been for ages. Not by a sole party though.

Here's a small example of the usual suspects from today.

NameWise - visualarts.com.au : Bottle : ? (DW?)

NameWise - petgrooming.com.au : Explorer : ? (DW?)

NameWise - fashionnews.com.au : Explorer: ? (DW?)

Rethink IT - chartingsoftware.com.au : Domain Candy : D8

Rabbit Tracks - businessblog.com.au : Domain Candy : D8

 

[Rhythm]

IMHO, and quite frankly, I think that anybody who's read Policy No: 2008-11 can easily conclude that Netfleet's position is legally defendable, both in terms of the letter of the policy and the spirit of the policy.

 

[Occy]

Is it just me or has the registrant for redhill.com.au changed from NetAlliance to Publishing Australia. If so how can this occur as it is a clear transfer of registrant.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Occy

 

[Rhythm]

I have been a silent observer for some time, but now feel the need to make a post. I am a great believer in the free market, but I also believe in a level playing field for all.

Netfleet's claim about snapping the name (townsville.com.au) needs to be analysed carefully. What has happened today is a travesty in my opinion, and here's why:

The Registrant is NetAlliance Pty Ltd. My understanding is that this is a j/v between NetRegistry (a Registrar) and Netfleet. Read here: http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/story63.php

auDA policy states that a Registrar shouldn't be involved in profiting from domains (amongst other things) - see here: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2008-11/

The Registrar of townsville.com.au is MD Web Hosting - owned by NetRegistry I think.

Have a look at whoIs and then please join the dots. Am I wrong in thinking this is unfair or unethical?

Yes you are wrong in thinking.

There are seriously too many holes in your accusation(s).

Also there are two phrases one should keep in mind:

"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
"Innocent until proven guilty"

 

[Occy]

Rhythm

I think the relevant clause in the policy is

"3.2 auDA has issued this document to clarify that clause 14.2.3 of the Registrar Agreement and clauses 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Practice prohibit a registrar, and its related entities, from registering domain names on their own behalf for any purpose other than the provision of registrar services."

NetAlliance is clearly a related entity. Maybe you should try reading the corporations act.

Attempting to the domain to another entity is questionable.

Occy

 

[Rhythm]

Rhythm

I think the relevant clause in the policy is

"3.2 auDA has issued this document to clarify that clause 14.2.3 of the Registrar Agreement and clauses 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Practice prohibit a registrar, and its related entities, from registering domain names on their own behalf for any purpose other than the provision of registrar services."

NetAlliance is clearly a related entity. Maybe you should try reading the corporations act.

Attempting to the domain to another entity is questionable.

Occy

You should try reading the second half of clause 1.2.

 

[DavidL]

Rhythm

I think the relevant clause in the policy is

"3.2 auDA has issued this document to clarify that clause 14.2.3 of the Registrar Agreement and clauses 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Practice prohibit a registrar, and its related entities, from registering domain names on their own behalf for any purpose other than the provision of registrar services."

NetAlliance is clearly a related entity. Maybe you should try reading the corporations act.

Attempting to the domain to another entity is questionable.

Occy

Unlike Occy, I'm quoting verbatim the relevant part of the policy.

“[The Registrar must not] be involved in any activity which involves the acquisition or accumulation of Domain Names which are not connected to the provision of Registrar Services under [the Registrar Agreement], for the purposes of removing them from the availability of others, transferring them for a direct or indirect, immediate or deferred gain or profit or for any other reason which can be considered to be done in bad faith”.

The purpose of registering was testing as I've stated numerous times.

Not for:

1) removing them from the availability of others
2) transferring them for a direct or indirect, immediate or deferred gain or profit
3) or for any other reason which can be considered to be done in bad faith

Understand, yet, Occy? Keep reading it & it'll sink in... hopefully.

Who are you anyway - why are you afraid to tell us. Is the success of netfleet contrary to your agenda?

 

[Occy]

Am I some sort of fool. Perhaps I am reading a different policy. As I stated the relevant section is 3.2

Once again I will copy and paste the relevant section this time in greater detail.

3. PERMISSIBLE OWN USE REGISTRATION BY REGISTRARS

3.1 Under the Registrar Agreement, registrars are allowed to register domain names on their own behalf which are connected to the provision of registrar services. For example, a registrar may register domain names that are an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of its own company or business name(s) or trademark(s), as well as domain names that refer to its registrar services.

3.2 auDA has issued this document to clarify that clause 14.2.3 of the Registrar Agreement and clauses 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Practice prohibit a registrar, and its related entities, from registering domain names on their own behalf for any purpose other than the provision of registrar services.

3.3 auDA may, at its own reasonable discretion, permit a registrar or its related entities to register a domain name on their own behalf in connection with the provision of services such as web hosting, website design, email and ISP services, IT hardware and software.

Interpret it how you may. Me I interpret it as read.

Occy

 

[Occy]

Netfleet.

How did you manage to transfer redhill.com.au from NetAlliance to Publishing Australia. Are they related entities?

Occy

 

[DavidL]

Am I some sort of fool.

Occy

No I don't think so - just reading the wrong policy. Here it is below. i'd suggest that everyone makes a judgement based on the actual website - not what Occy posts or even what I post.

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2008-11/

Hope that helps.

BTW again for the third time, who are you? If you have a hidden agenda, no one can take any of your comments seriously. My agenda is clear - what's yours?

 

[geodomains]

Sorry to but in on this stoush, but what does Pending regulator approval mean?

Domain Name townsville.com.au
Last Modified 27-Oct-2009 06:33:54 UTC
Registrar ID MD Web Hosting
Registrar Name MD Web Hosting
Status pendingUpdate (Pending regulator approval)
Status inactive
Registrant NetAlliance Pty Ltd
Eligibility Type Registered Business
Eligibility Name NetAlliance Pty Ltd
Eligibility ID ABN 98134314373
Registrant Contact ID NF-NET-6960386
Registrant Contact Name The Directors
Registrant Contact Email admin@netfleet.com.au
Tech Contact ID NF-NET-6960386
Tech Contact Name The Directors
Tech Contact Email admin@netfleet.com.au

Don

 

[geodomains]

Also David,
I see you've changed the registrant details for the other 3 domains now to Publishing Australia.

Why have you done that?

Don

 

[Occy]

No I don't think so - just reading the wrong policy. Here it is below. i'd suggest that everyone makes a judgement based on the actual website - not what Occy posts or even what I post.

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2008-11/

Hope that helps.

BTW again for the third time, who are you? If you have a hidden agenda, no one can take any of your comments seriously. My agenda is clear - what's yours?

Strange that seems exactly the same as the policy I am cutting and pasting from. Can somebody verify this for me perhaps I am going mad. Has my computer cached some strange page

My agenda is to establish a level playing field.

Occy

 

[Rhythm]

It seems both paragraphs are in the same document.

1.2 is under the 'BACKGROUND' section

3.2 is under the 'PERMISSIBLE OWN USE REGISTRATION BY REGISTRARS' section

1.2 elucidates 3.2.

 

[Occy]

Also David,
I see you've changed the registrant details for the other 3 domains now to Publishing Australia.

Why have you done that?

Don

Hi Don,

Can you remind us which domains they were as I can only remember redhill.com.au and townsville.com.au. I did see the others at the time but forget what they were

Thanks
Occy

 

[domainlover]

i think if david is to be attacked he should at least know who is doing it.