Allegations of unethical behaviour in the domain name game are being bandied about, with Australian domain name companies claiming to be concerned about the impact on consumers' perception of the industry as a whole.

Local Web hosting company NetRegistry has forwarded to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) what it believes is evidence showing ongoing unethical behaviour by Melbourne IT and Internet Name Group (ING).

Larry Bloch, CEO at NetRegistry, said it had gathered and collated this evidence because it believed the situation had been allowed to go on for too long. -We play in an industry which is getting a very bad reputation because of the activities of companies," he said.

-The other part of it is that these companies are a thorn in our side," he said, adding that it was a drain on its business to have to clarify what were legitimate practices to its customers.

When ZDNet Australia spoke with Bloch in late November about a similar issue, he described the marketing practices of certain competitors as -a deceptively misleading, sneaky, slimy attempt to mislead the public".

At the time Bloch said he would not rule out directing customer complaints against such practices to staff at the ACCC, in an attempt to force them to react.

An ACCC spokesperson confirmed it had received complaints regarding Melbourne IT and Internet Name Group.

Although the spokesperson would not discuss details of the complaints, she did say that the complaints related to alleged breaches of Part V of the Trade Practices Act, which deals with misleading and disceptive conduct.

The spokesperson said the complaints would be investigated.

There are a range of penalties and remedies provided for by the Trade Practices Act for breaches of the unfair practices provisions of Part V. These vary and include monetary penalties; injunctions to prevent the prohibited conduct continuing or being repeated, or require that some action be taken. If a case proceeds to court, the ACCC would need to prove its case to the satisfaction of the Federal Court, the spokesperson said, with all remedies at the discretion of the court, decided by the judge, not the ACCC.

Among the allegations, NetRegistry asserts that Melbourne IT has sent unsolicited domain name renewal notices to customers of its channel partners in advance of the renewals being due.

Bruce Tonkin, chief technology officer at Melbourne IT, said all .com.au domain name registrations are valid for two years. He said Melbourne IT only contacted customers of its resellers if 28 days prior to expiry the domain name hadn't been renewed. Registrants then had the option to renew their domain name through their existing reseller, through another supplier, or with Melbourne IT directly.

With Melbourne IT direct customers, Tonkin said that after expiry various attempts were made to contact the domain name holder. Thirty days after expiry the domain name is removed from the zone file (which means it is no longer functional), with an e-mail sent to the registrant notifying them that this has occurred. If the registrant still does not renew their domain name 60 days after expiry, the domain name will then be deleted.

Tonkin said he was not aware of complaints from domain name owners regarding this procedure.

On a more general note, Tonkin said Melbourne IT did receive complaints about the behaviour of resellers, some of which he believed stemmed from customers being unaware that it was a competitive industry. He said it encouraged organisations such as the auDA and the ACCC to issue consumer alerts to help educate consumers that they should shop around for the best deals.

Chris Disspain, CEO, at auDA said the organisation had issued two consumer alerts in the past which have cautioned consumers to be careful about when they receive what appear to be invoices for renewal, and also informing them about how long domain names can be renewed for. Disspain said the auDA also encouraged resellers to e-mail their customers with links to auDA's consumer alerts.

Disspain also believes that when auDA introduces its new rules next year these practices will become fewer, as a result of auDA accredited registers and their resellers being obliged to follow its publicised policy.

NetRegistry is also alleging that Internet Names Group has been behaving unethically. It asserts that ING has taken payment for domain renewal and kept the money, and have not bothered to renew the domain name, resulting in the domain name being deregistered.

However, these allegations have been denied by Internet Name Group (ING) general manager Sasha Sudakov.

Sudakov was adamant that none of its customers had had their domain names deregistered as a result of payment for renewal not being made. He said that ING paid its account with Melbourne IT in advance, even if it didn't have the orders yet.

He said Melbourne IT allowed it to renew a domain name for a client two months prior to it expiring. Sudakov also said that ING sent out advice to customers educating them about the renewal process explaining to them that there was a choice who they renewed their name with.

He said ING offered a standard two-year renewal to its customers, although added that for some of its top clients the company managed their renewals for longer periods of time. -Clients will prepay us to manage their domain names for more than two years," Sudakov said. -We have been able to provide security and service to customers...which wasn't provided before by the community."

He emphasised that he doesn't believe ING has done anything illegal. -We are trying to provide a service to customers...all we ask is for a fair shot at competition," Sudakov said.

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.