auDA clampdown deemed unfair

The Australian domain name regulator has been accused of indiscriminately deleting domains belonging to Empius Interactive, a claim the administrator denies.

Empius -- a company which provides Web hosting services, including the negotiation of domain rights -- said auDA (.au Domain Administration) failed to exercise due care before taking action.

According to Michael Shorthill, a spokesperson for Empius, auDA initially confiscated the domain sprite.com.au -- belonging to the Perth-based company -- but later backtracked after realising Empius had a legitimate reason to own the name through its registered subsidiary, Sprite Multimedia.

Shorthill alleged that auDA tried to remove another domain name even though the company no longer owned it.

"This proves that auDA didn't even bother to check a lot of the domains ... [it] simply issued a delete order," he said.

Shorthill also claimed that the regulator deleted many other domains, saying: "Even though we gave perfectly valid reasons for them, and in some cases, [we] even had a site up and running."

When contacted, auDA CEO Chris Disspain said he wasn't aware of the sprite.com.au issue, and that no domains were expunged by accident.

However, Shorthill said that Disspain had personally e-mailed him about the sprite.com.au incident, implying that the issue was Empius' fault because it had failed to disclose its Sprite Multimedia connection.

Shorthill contended it should have been easy for auDA to trace ownership records since the WHOIS database publicly lists domain owners.

Disspain refused to comment further as the matter is currently under investigation.

On June 6, auDA seized more than 1,000 domains from search engine company Ansearch, saying its intended use did not comply with the regulator's policies. From this list, more than 100 names were then purchased by Empius.

Empius' Shorthill confirmed his company had no connection with Ansearch but merely monitored potential domains for purchase.

Advertisement

Talkback 8 comments

    Great article, except I think ...Anonymous -- 09/06/05

    Great article, except I think your link to whois.net confuses the issue.

    Whois.net are a commercial entity unassociated with the actual running of the whois database.

    It would be far better to link to the official .au whois database at aunic, here's the link.

    http://www.aunic.net/cgi-bin/whois.aunic

    Regards.

    Mike.
    http://whois.com.au/

    So were the asterisks in the f ...Anonymous -- 09/06/05

    So were the asterisks in the first comment put there
    by ZDnet software?
    Such editing is stupid & futile, the work of arseclowns
    of the first order.
    Why would a supposedly tech-savvy news site wish
    to be ****ociated with such crud?

    AuDA are missing the bigger pi ...Anonymous -- 09/06/05

    AuDA are missing the bigger picture. Their current policy does nothing to prevent such registrations and as they have now seen with the re-registration of some of Ansearch's name... this issue will continue to repeat itself.

    As it stands now, the registrant registers a name, AuDA takes their money and then AuDA takes away their domain name if they see fit to do so.

    Clearly this is better financially for AuDA than actually putting in a system to prevent dodgy registrations (like the previous system whereby a business had to have a registeredd business or company for 'every' domain name.)

    Join the dots...

    The anonymous comments from th ...Anonymous -- 09/06/05

    The anonymous comments from the Sydney ISP Manager are off base.

    The new policy whereby names only have to have a "close connection" to the company in operation, not directly linked to the name of the company, was a policy developed by an open public consultation chaired independently of auDA. auDA did not merely decide to do this for any financial reason. In fact, auDA recently again lowered the wholesale domain name fees to reduce its income from domain names.

    I met Chris Disspain when AuDA ...Anonymous -- 10/06/05

    I met Chris Disspain when AuDA was first being launched. Then, and since, he's been pleasantly honest and direct in all the public dealings I've seen, plus he's been directly reachable for any queries. If it's his word against some ISP operator, he wins as far as I'm concerned.

    Just a comment for Melb old sc ...Anonymous -- 10/06/05

    Just a comment for Melb old school hacker. Nice work mate! You've got to love a profanity filter that **'s out the word "****ociated", but lets "arseclown" stright through.

    Couldn't agree more with your comments!

    Kim, I stand by what I said... ...Anonymous -- 10/06/05

    Kim,

    I stand by what I said... the old system while more expensive and more time consuming did not produce the mess we are seeing now.

    In theory, the current system could allow the same 'suspect' domain name to be registered, deleted, registered, deleted ad infinitum.

    AuDA receives revenue.

    From what I can tell AuDA doesn't refund the money made on these domain name deletions and nor does the registrar.

    It is in their collective interest to let this happen even though it would be so easy to fix.

    Why don't they introduce a system whereby any domain name that has been deleted previously needs to go through a far more rigorous process to be re-registered.

    These domain names could be manually vetted prior to approval instead of the current system whereby the relevant checks are only done in the event of a complaint.

    How does the current system protect businesses that have a legitimate right to a name...? It doesn't. At least not quickly.

    That way first time domain name registrants can still get their names quikcly.

    Companies like Empius would have to prove each name individually before they profit from some other companies missfortune in being caught up in a flawed policy.

    auDA are really are lifting th ...Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    auDA are really are lifting their games i feel.

    interestingly though looking at Hitwise Stats Ansearch.com.au's rank has actually risen since the domain names were deleted? the same for their phonebook.com.au website? Guess the domain names had no relevance on traffic being reported by Ansearch.

    Empius were redirecting to their Searchmate website, which basically killed browsers...

    wwwyahoo.com.au watch out!!

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal IT: Govt's cost-cutting bitch
    The government needs to stop looking at IT as a necessary evil or the place to remove costs when the Treasurer comes calling.
  • Array Can complaints on mobile content be cut?
    On 1 July this year the new Mobile Premium Services Code was introduced. It sounds like it's had a good impact, but is it enough?
  • Array NZ farmers: Bleating about broadband
    As we know, farmers are such bleaters. They bleat as much as the four-legged woolly things in their paddocks. If it's not the weather, it's the strength of the dollar! Nothing is ever right. Likewise with rural broadband.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured