Who Holds The Power?

With the Federal Government last week announcing a review into auDA, I thought it would be helpful to explore the range of options available to the Minister (if remedial action was required).

To this end, I have asked someone far more knowledgeable than me to write a guest article on this topic. Hopefully that will be available in a couple of days.

In the meantime, I came across this helpful snippet from a reported case in the Supreme Court – Court of Appeal  – Australian Style Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd [2010] VSCA 184 (23 July 2010). This was the “Bottle Domains” incident.

Ned O’Meara – 23rd October 2017


7 thoughts on “Who Holds The Power?

  • October 23, 2017 at 9:44 am

    Interesting reading the “Terms of Reference” that the government released the other day,

    • recognising that the Internet naming system is a public resource
    • operating as a fully self-funding and not-for-profit organisation
    • being inclusive of and accountable to all members of the Australian internet community
    • adopting open, transparent and consultative processes
    • promoting competition, fair trading and provisions for consumer protection and support
    • establishing appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, and
    • representing Australian internet industry interests in the internet domain name system at national and international fora.

    I’d say AUDA have failed in all criteria mentioned except the last 2.

    18 people like this.
  • October 23, 2017 at 10:13 am

    Ned – very interesting that you quoted this case.

    By a great coincidence, the current acting-chair of auDA, Erhan Karabardak, was the solicitor acting for Bottle Domains in the handling of the security breach incident. However, Erhan Karabardak’s firm was not used by Bottle Domains in the court actions.

    You can read about the detailed interaction between Bottle Domains and auDA in this original judgement (which decided in auDA’s favour). The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (referenced in your article above), which was also decided in auDA’s favour.

    The full judgement of the originating case can be read here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/422.html


    20 people like this.
    • October 24, 2017 at 9:04 am

      “Erhan Karabardak’s firm was not used by Bottle Domains in the court actions.” He was probably a material witness and so could not act. 

  • October 23, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Legal costs must have been huge in this action. Loads of initial work (Karabardak), and then subsequent court cases including appeals. Loads of lawyers and QCs. Wonder what Karabardak is like as a lawyer? He seems to be a good boardroom operator at auda.

    16 people like this.
    • October 23, 2017 at 11:46 am

      Did auDA ( acting for .au registrant consumers whose money auDA uses for paying auDA expenses) get all of  their legal costs paid back after winning?

      17 people like this.
  • October 23, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Presumably the Government will be transparent and publish all submissions? The basketcase that is auDA today can be sheeted home to just a few people.


    16 people like this.
  • October 24, 2017 at 8:20 am

    Constitutional battle anyone?

    2 people like this.

Comments are closed.