From: Bret Busby [
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 2:23 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Public Consultation Report 


Hello.

I have visited the web site for the AuDA, and, have viewed the above report.

The report appears to make no mention of removing, or, intending to remove, or, the possibility 
of removing, the monopoly of registering domain names in the .au domain.

I understand that Melbourne IT, or, its subsidiary INWW, has a monopoly of registration  in the 
.au domain.

Due to my experience, I have found that Melbourne IT has acted in bad faith in the registration 
of domain names, and, I believe that Melbourne IT is not of good character, to be providing domain 
name registration.

I therefore ask what is being done, to end the monopoly of Melbourne IT as the sole registrar in 
the .au domain, and, to introduce competition for domain name registration, in the 2LD's, that 
are administered by Melbourne IT. 

I also ask what is being done, to make domain name registrars in the .au domain, accountable for 
their actions, and, whether, the status of domain name registrars, will be subject to review 
(whether their licence to register domain names, can be revoked, if they engage in acts of bad 
faith, in the registration of domain names).

Also, whilst I note that reference is made, to "independent arbitrator", for dispute resolution 
(4.5.2 (d)(1)), firstly, the wording is "there should be an appeal to an independent arbitrator", 
but, no mention is made, of lodging an initial complaint of a bad faith registration; to whom 
should it be submitted? If the complaint is against both the registrar and the registrant; then, 
to be required to submit the complaint to the registrar is inappropriate. There should be both 
a primary dipute determining agency, and, an appellate agency, to which appeal may be made, 
against the first decision.

The second issue, with the dispute resultion process, in terms of the "independent arbitrator", 
is, who, or, what, shall the "independent arbitrator", be? This is a matter that needs 
investigating. If it is to be a court, then, the courts of competent juridiction, need to be 
specified, and, also, need to be empowered by statute. There also needs to be statutory provision, 
to ensure that whoever, or, whatever the "independent arbitrator" may be, it is accountable in 
law; there must be process (eg, coverage by the ADJR Act, or, the AAT Act), to ensure that 
whatever decisions it makes, it makes with due process, and, according to applicable laws. This 
does not mean that the decisions of the second-level,  appellate, "independent arbitrator", 
should be able to be reviewed, on the basis of the merits of a decision it makes, but, on the 
basis of the correctness of the decision making process. This is on the assumption that two 
levels of "independent arbitrator", exist; one to deal with the initial complaint, and, another, 
to deal with an appeal against the decision of the first "independent arbitrator".

Also, the accessibility to dispute resolution, needs to be ensured. As an example, the UDRP of 
ICANN, with only the few "arbitrators", who charge complaint lodgement fees that are so high as 
to make the process favour either the rich and powerful, or, the domain name pirates, makes the 
dispute resolution process inaccessible to the common man, and, to small business owners, 
making domain name registration completely lacking in equity.

The policy, as proposed, fails to address these very important considerations, regarding domain 
name disutes. As with the ICANN UDRP, if the process is inaccessible, then it does not exist.

-- 

Bret Busby

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................