Home InternetNZ Domain Name Commissioner ICANNWatch ICANN.blog No Such Weblog nznews Categories DNC NZRS Domainz Media Articles InternetNZ ccTLD's gTLD's Email Author All postings here are my own opinion. YMMV. May shrink in hot water. Do not expose to UV. May contain traces of nuts. With added riboflavin!

List of all DNC authorised registrars is available with .nz domain name pricing and other details. Please be advised that the list is out of date but it will be updated in future.   Friday, 9 April 2004 auda and DNA Part II Some interesting quotes on the court ruling: Chesley Rafferty (Director of DNA): Well Justice Finklestein passed judgement today, firstly he found that the notices that DNA sends to businesses were NOT "invoices" as so many people like to assert on this list. I suggest that these people make immediate changes to the use of that word in references to my notices. Of course I reserve my legal rights in the matter. Secondly, there are only a few parts of my notices that need to be modified, so guess what guys looks like your mate and DNA are here to stay. So rush outside and check your mail, there might be a letter or 20 waiting. Chris Dispain (CEO of auDA): I think it's OK to say that the notices are misleading and deceptive now because the Judge has found that the notice was misleading and deceptive. But hey, Chesley, if you're unhappy about my choice of words...... sue me. Oh and BTW Chesley, may I respectfully suggest you employ a new spin doctor...your attempt to throw a positive light on the judgement was disappointingly pathetic. 6:45:25 PM      Like to comment? [] .au Domain Administration Ltd v Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd A solictor for auDA has just reported the following on the dot au mail list: On 8 April 2004 Justice Finkelstein in the Federal Court of Australia delivered judgement in .au Domain Administration Ltd's (auDA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) separate proceedings against Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd (DNA) and Mr Chesley Paul Rafferty. His Honour found that notices sent by DNA in July and September 2003 to approximately 593,000 recipients in each Australian state other than Tasmania constituted conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). Justice Finkelstein found that Mr Rafferty was knowingly concerned in DNA's contraventions of the TPA. His Honour held that neither DNA nor Mr Rafferty contravened section 64 of the TPA. Each of Domain Names Australia and Mr Rafferty will be subject to an injunction restraining them from further breaching s52 of the TPA for 3 years. The parties will make further submissions to the Court in due course in relation to the final form of the orders to be made and the future conduct of auDA's representative proceedings. A full copy of Justice Finkelstein's reasons for decision will shortly be available at the Australian Legal Information Institute's website http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/recent.html 6:20:07 PM      Like to comment? [] © Copyright 2007 Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath. Last update: 9/07/2007; 10:21:25 p.m.. April 2004 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat         1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30   Mar   May Archived Months March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002