Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 30 January 2003
Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Peter Gray
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Domain ownership

Interesting article, I have seen the same thing myself
(used to register domains on behalf of customers), but I
think that the people saying it makes admin easier are
telling porkies. It used to be, and as far as I know still
is, possible to make all sorts of amendments by logging on
using a ".nz Provider" ID and then having access to change
almost any detail. Admittedly there is a fee for being a
registered Provider, but if that is what you do for a
living why not do it properly? Registered Providers do get
discounts so unless they register very few domains they
should make the fee back.

Just my spin on things,




From: Jared
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Retrospective Disclaimers....

I dont know about disclaimers... but what
about 'retrospective EULAs'???

remember the old 'opening of this package constitutes
agreement with the Terms and Conditions of the End User
Licensing Agreement'... the EULA being hidden inside the
shrinkwrap packaging...

i remember a while ago there was a big todo about this
practice of making people agree to EULA's they couldnt
actually read... but i never saw any resolution as the tech
media seemed to get bored with it quite quickly...




From: Peter
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: E-mails sent to wrong address

Naturally, lawyers started this practice of 'disclaimers'
at the bottom of E-mails.  I agree that they are unlikely
to 'bind' the receiver, but there would be three important
exceptions:
1.  State secrets
2.  If it is 'insider information' and you buy or sell
    shares etc on the strength of this information.
3.  If you 'spread' what may be a defamatory statement

The one about 'legal privilege' is unlikely to affect the
receiver but does strengthen the hands of a lawyer who
claims that it is inadmissible as court evidence if the
receiver is found with it or passes it on to the opposing
party.

Years ago I took my car to be serviced and paid cash.  They
gave me a receipted invoice full of eye-cracking small
print no doubt concocted by their lawyers.  It left such a
negative feeling I did not go back.




From: Debbie Monahan
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Domain name registration

Current .nz policies and procedures prohibit the behaviour
described in your article.  See
http://www.dnc.org.nz/story/30037-35-1.html for the list of
all .nz policies.

Authorised registrars are not permitted to register domains
in their own name unless they are/will be using that domain
name themselves.  Registrars are also required to ensure
that any other party using their connection also complies
with the .nz policies.

This means that an ISP, web designer or hosting company
should not be registering domains in their own names as
that would be a breach of .nz policy.  The only time it
would be permitted is if the organisation is something like
a web designer and who has clear Terms and Conditions saying
that while the site is being developed the domain name will
be in their name, but that it will be transferred over to
the registrant on the completion of the design and payment
for services.

If someone finds that a domain name, which should have been
registered in their name, has been put under the name of an
ISP or similar, they should first complain to the
organisation involved and/or the registrar responsible
for the name.  If they are not satisfied with the outcome,
they are able to lay a complaint with the Domain Name
Commissioner who will investigate it.

Another activity that is not permitted in the .nz
environment, is organisations sending out renewal notices,
or anything that could reasonably be construed to be a
renewal notice, to a registrant unless they are the
registrar-of-record for that domain name.  Possible
sanctions can be imposed on a registrar undertaking such an
action, or on any registrar who assists any other
organisation who has sent out such a notice, in registering
or renewing domain names.

If anyone does have any complaints about registrar
behaviour on the .nz SRS they should take it up with the
registrar, but also feel free to complain to the DNC
(complaints@dnc.org.nz) if their complaint is not resolved.

A list of all authorised .nz registrars is at
http://www.dnc.org.nz/story/30056-28-1.html and the list
of .nz policies and procedures is available at
http://www.dnc.org.nz/story/30037-35-1.html

Debbie Monahan
Domain Name Commissioner




From: Mike
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: E-mails sent to wrong address

A few years ago I reserved e-mail sent to the wrong person
By ANZ Bank Head Office containing confidential information
so I read it as every one who does and at the bottom it
said, “ if this email was not sent to you do not read it
(to late I just did I thought to my self) legal action will
be taken against you”
So I gave them a call and told them about it, bad mistake
the got so annoyed about it that there lawyer sent me a
letter to go to court
But my lawyer got around it since the email was sent to my
email address and it had my email address on it
So it was kick out of court

So if an email is sent to you and its says its not for you
the people who sent it by mistake have no leg to stand on




From: RobK
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Retro Disclaimer Legal

Retroactive disclaimers and that long winded legal diatribe
found at the bottom of emails and faxes are, in fact,
legally binding ONLY IF YOU GET IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT (left
wing) JUDGE.

In the US, it is common to see cases pop out that have this
kind of thing penalizing individuals who had nothing or
little to do with an event or condition, and the penalty
being paid to people that have nothing to do with it at all.

BeWARE of legalease on anything... read it... then when in
doubt, ask your retainer (a lawyer paid to give advice on a
regular basis).

Example: Americans with Disabilities Act states that anyone
can sue you if your facility doesn't meet the exact letter
of the law. Recently, a handicapped company that
specializes in access was sued by a lawyer because of an
obscure 1 inch measure on a door frame. The lawyer had
nothing to do with the company except that any penalties
paid would go to that lawyer.

When in doubt, go on the offensive...
Rob K
Ft Bragg, NC
Hit Reload For Latest Comments
Now Have Your Say