domainwatch.org

auDA to get industry code of practice
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/0,39023166,20262111,00.htm

” ….

Domain name resellers from across the country have come out in support of comments made by NetRegistry CEO Larry Bloch, and auDA board member Joshua Rowe, as the auDA launches a code of practice aimed at improving the industry.

… “

Domain notices fuel legal row
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,3326888%5E15318%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Aust domain name resellers brace for bloodbath http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20262049,00.htm

Spektor asserted,

“Rowe has been conducting a smear campaign against us for sometime and has refused to desist, despite repeated warnings. We have been left with no alternative but to take legal action.”

“Repeated warnings” implies more than one, I have only ever received one communication from ING in the form of a legal demand notice.

If ING’s marketing practices are sound then they shouldn’t they be thanking me for publicising them?

ACCC to clamp down on domain namers
http://www.itnews.com.au/story.cfm?ID=8565

Domain name scam - consumer alert
http://www.netregistry.com.au/about/news/consumeralert.html

DOMAIN NAME RENEWAL NOTICES CENTRE OF COPYRIGHT DISPUTE
http://www.necg.com.au/JustDoIPArchive/issue011207_107.shtml

” …

Domain name renewal notices sent to a domain name owner by the Melbourne-based Internet Names Group are the centre of a copyright dispute. Joshua Rowe posted the renewal notices from ING on his website and is refusing to remove them, despite claims by ING that the information contained in the notices is copyright protected. Rowe, who has campaigned against ING’s practices, believes that ING is unlikely to win copyright protection in an Australian court because the notices represent public policy. He has also complained to the ACCC regarding ING’s notices that relate to domains already registered.
Source: AustralianIT, Nov 27, 2001

… “

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/23/191726

ING’s lawyer has claimed that:

• ING is the owner of the copyright subsisting in certain documents
  allegedly published by me on the Internet, which concerns ING; and
• I have infringed ING’s copyright in the documents by reproducing
  those documents, and communicating them to the public.

In response to this claim I have engaged the services of Maddock Lonie & Chisholm to represent me.

In the first instance, we do not believe that copyright subsists in those documents. In our view, the documents cannot properly be classified as literary or other works as required by the Copyright Act 1968.

Even if copyright is taken to subsist in those documents, and even if I am taken to have infringed the copyright ING (which I deny), we suggest that an Australian court will most likely deny copyright protection to ING on public policy grounds.