Hi all,

I am keen to buy some .com.au domains and develop them.

My only concern is this "policy delete" thing with auDA I am not to keen to spend like 5k on a domain just to have it taken one day for a poor reason.

Reading these policy's - http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2008-10/

Basically it states you can not sit on the domain and just have a landing page for example.

Yet I see heaps of keyword rich .com.au domains where people just have landing pages asking for offers to buy this domain for example?? Or you see a great .com.au generic domain and some one has a landing page "do you want to rent this domain for X number for dollars"

I have a ABN number for a web based services company I own, does this mean I can purchase say 4 different generic keyword "shoes" "coffee" "student loans" domains and have high quality content sites relating to these 4 specific content areas similar to what www.omg.com.au using my 1. ABN number.

To me the .com.au domain area seems a bit funny, I have read about how that Kanga Internet/ OMG.com.au company started and I don't get it.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1191995

Finally has any one had their domain name taken from them after they have paid decent money for it? I noticed specials.com.au come up as a policy delete today and I thought why it was happening?

But reading all these threads really gets me thinking, is it worth me spending time on this market?

Thanks =)

__________________
Check out my sites: Sydney SEO and Social Media|SEO Australia |Professional SEO |Life Insurance Cover |
Backlinks
For Professional SEO and Social Media Consulting from a well known local consultant, Linkbuilding and more email: contact(at)professionalseo.com.au (Say you are from DNTrade, too be looked after!)

Where does it state that?

If the landing page relates to the domain then that meets the close and substantial connection rule,

"4. DOMAIN NAMES REGISTERED FOR PURPOSE OF DOMAIN MONETISATION

4.1 It is acceptable to register domain names under the close and substantial connection rule for the explicit purpose of domain monetisation within the category “a service that the registrant provides”. The “service” being provided by a domainer is the service of providing users with information and advertising links about the subject matter of the domain name."

If the name just says for sale or something else then they'd need to meet the rule in another way I would think, like a having a similar business name etc.

Typically if there is a problem like an out of date trading name the registrar will send out an email to the registrant first. I think it is usually done on a complaints basis so the more valuable/in demand names are likely more susceptible to it.

__________________
Net.au - Trusted by The Goulburn Railway Bowling Club and other leading businesses. Menu now online! Sunday Special: $9.90 MEAL DEAL - STEAK or SCHNITZEL with CHIP & SALAD or VEGETABLES + A FREE OF "BRUER BRIGHT" BEER.

Hi James,

Firstly, I'd say don't worry too much. People seem to be paranoid about auDA swooping down and deleting portfolios. This doesn't really happen without some reason (esp in the last few years when actions have been a lot more 'measured')

The main things to worry about:

1) obey the close and substantial connection rule. Make sure your content largely matches the domain name. You can buy shoes.com.au and coffee.com.au etc but just make sure the content (ads included) matches shoes and coffee related stuff

2) be aware of the misspellings list. If auDA deem a domain to be a misspelling of a 'brand name', you stand to lose it http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-05/

3) if a domain contains a brand name, best not to monetise it or you could risk losing it. http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-03/

And that's about it. Follow those three rules and you should be OK and you do only need one ABN number.

You should also remember that most policies are complaint based so it's only if someone kicks up a stink that they will investigate. You will also have a chance to respond to the complaint and state your case or even given time to amend your site to comply with policy.

This sort of stuff is currently being reviewed in the Names Policy Panel so things could be changing soon.

On that note, would be keen to hear your feedback. In particular here are a few issues up for debat right now:

1) Should the misspellings policy be scrapped? Should it be up to auDA what constitutes a 'brand name'?
2) Should the monetisation policy be dropped? These days it's hard to define when a monetised website becomes a regular advertising supported website so why should there be special rules for monetised sites?
3) Should leasing be explicitly allowed?
4) Should rules on foreign entities registering in .au be tightened up or loosened?

__________________
CocktailRecipes.com.au ★ Photographers.com.au ★ DebitCard.com.au ★ Hockey.com.au ★ Boxing.com.au ★ DomainName.com.au

1. If its a trademark term miss spellings should be banned to as it is a render to the trademark.
2. I think it is very hard to police look at creditcards.com.au its affiliate heaven, so yeah drop it imo.
3. No i think it is unfair, if you buy the domain develop it leasing is pretty much cyber squatting.
4. I think they should be because investment from overseas will make this market more favorable.

__________________
Check out my sites: Sydney SEO and Social Media|SEO Australia |Professional SEO |Life Insurance Cover |
Backlinks
For Professional SEO and Social Media Consulting from a well known local consultant, Linkbuilding and more email: contact(at)professionalseo.com.au (Say you are from DNTrade, too be looked after!)

Thanks for feedback, James.

Anyone else have any opinions?

__________________
CocktailRecipes.com.au ★ Photographers.com.au ★ DebitCard.com.au ★ Hockey.com.au ★ Boxing.com.au ★ DomainName.com.au

This is nuts, how is leasing a website akin to cyber squatting?

Many people think of domains in the same manner as they do land and/or property.

If I buy a block of land in a new estate and choose to keep it vacant for the next 10 years while other people are building homes, that's my right because I was the first person to purchase the vacant block. It's also my right to rent it out if I decide to build a home on the land.

People can bitch about it, complain about it.. whatever, you get the point I'm trying to make. If I was first in and stumped up the cash, it's mine.

Just like many others, there are truckloads of domains I wish I owned and had registered by hand. That doesn't mean the person who got it first is not entitled to it just because I have grand plans for it and would do more than simply park it.

Interesting semi recent domain history that you have brought up there through the whirlpool forums ..

These in particular ..

http://www.dotau.org/archive/2005-08/0030.html

Some strong wording ..

//It would, upon first review, appear that the 'infamous' xxx has once again usurped
the "integrity of the principal" of AuDA Policy regarding Geographic Domains. This appears
to be a plangent attempt and demonstration of his propensity and inclination to
"monopolise" the geographic domain name market.

For those who would be interested I do hope that he does in fact use them for the purpose
they were intended- "to promote the geographic locations of Australian Business and
Services and not a contrivance to use sites such as Bingo Vic (near Omeo Gippsland
Victoria 3898) and Casino NSW (2470 in The Richmond Tweed Area) for his gaming and
gambling affiliations.

For those of us who have dealt with Mr xxx I say "Exercise caution in your business
affairs, for the world is full of trickery"//


http://www.dotau.org/archive/2005-10/0007.html

10/4/05,
> It seems our mate xxx (Aussie Destinations, Boomerang.com.au, Online
> Referral Networks Australia, Internet Products Sales Services etc etc) has
> recently been on another domain buying binge. I guess why not since he can
> get away with it so blantantly. A small sample of some of the generics he
> has acquired in the last week or so ...
>
> chains.com.au
> fork.com.au
> boutiques.com.au
> browsers.com.au
> cabinets.com.au
> caretakers.com.au
> cereals.com.au
> disabled.com.au
> meats.com.au
> sunroofs.com.au
> tinting.com.au
> tracksuits.com.au
> breakfast.com.au
> plaques.com.au
> scarves.com.au
> winches.com.au
> artifacts.com.au
> beauties.com.au
> comedians.com.au
> buoy.com.au
> childbirth.com.au
> croquet.com.au
> jacks.com.au
> karting.com.au
> monogram.com.au
> station.com.au

Seems like a lot of misplaced anger over a smart cookie playing within the rules. That 7 companies play was fabulous.