Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
You can't be serious.
Direct registrations are happening
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
findtim
Top Contributor
contractual obligations: they'll just think of some other excuse, like when GST came in many businesses decided they would " review their changes " becuase " they hadn't increased in X years.
.net.au , different ball game, a .net is far less confusing and more easily distigushed from .com.au then .au will be.
we have ALL put forward very good points of view for thats XX months from both sides of the coin and it all comes back to money, my money into someone elses pocket.
if its now deamed FAIR todo this then isn't equally as FAIR to not charge for the .au ? take the money away for defensive registrations and you would see far less support from demand class on this topic.
Does anyone have a figures on NEW registrations that occurred in uk and nz, thats egistration where the .co.uk/.co.nz is not registered? if you worked on that figure it would not be cost effective IMO.
tim
.net.au , different ball game, a .net is far less confusing and more easily distigushed from .com.au then .au will be.
we have ALL put forward very good points of view for thats XX months from both sides of the coin and it all comes back to money, my money into someone elses pocket.
if its now deamed FAIR todo this then isn't equally as FAIR to not charge for the .au ? take the money away for defensive registrations and you would see far less support from demand class on this topic.
Does anyone have a figures on NEW registrations that occurred in uk and nz, thats egistration where the .co.uk/.co.nz is not registered? if you worked on that figure it would not be cost effective IMO.
tim
petermeadit
Top Contributor
snoopy
Top Contributor
Most everyday people know the .net.au is not worth registering.
snoopy
Top Contributor
That is a bit like looking for taken .net's where the .com is not registered, I think that would only be a measure of "registrant folly" to count where people have registered the confusing alternative whilst leaving the main extension not taken.
snoopy
Top Contributor
I suspect it is going to be very variable under those condition, .net.au owners aren't exactly known for big big spenders. Also the market for .com.au isn't very strong and this is the 2nd rate version that will be seen as speculative/defensive.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
dotau.sucks
I remember ready this article awhile back - O how relevant it is today for our name space;
In truth it's only a choice because the wrong choice was made initially by the very people who now want you to pay out again for something you should have had from the start. Germany always had just .de, France .fr and many other countries from the beginning had the shorter version.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/61490980/a-domain-by-any-other-name.html
I remember ready this article awhile back - O how relevant it is today for our name space;
In truth it's only a choice because the wrong choice was made initially by the very people who now want you to pay out again for something you should have had from the start. Germany always had just .de, France .fr and many other countries from the beginning had the shorter version.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/61490980/a-domain-by-any-other-name.html
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Once implemented there is no going back...NZ is very angry about what happened to their name space, its a mess, do you think AUDA is going to compensate the owners of .au when the market confusion in its name space capitulates? No, it means more money to them in dispute resolution than possible registration income.
Shane
Top Contributor
I'd be hugely surprised if there was an auction between existing owners.
The NZ process was fairly straightforward. If one entity owned the matching co.nz and/or net.nz at the cut-off date then only that entity could register the .nz for the first couple of years.
If two different entities owned the matching domains, then neither could have the .nz unless one party agreed to relinquish their rights.
I had a few NZ domains and the process was good. One of the domains was regarded as conflicted (I owned the net.nz and someone else owned the co.nz) but after a while they relinquished and I got the .nz.
neddy
Top Contributor
When I suggested last year (at the Names Panel and the AGM) that auDA should contact all affected registrants about the proposed direct registration changes (or a good representative sample at least), they wouldn't have a bar of it citing "potential spam issues".
Well at least we can now be thankful for some small mercies. They have obviously overcome this fear.
This from their latest announcement:
We all know that the actual survey question asked was designed to get a specific answer. However, playing the "glad game" for a moment, I'm sure we can now look forward to some proper and meaningful engagement with their stakeholders when it comes to discussing / deciding implementation ideas.
I live in hope ...
Well at least we can now be thankful for some small mercies. They have obviously overcome this fear.
This from their latest announcement:
We all know that the actual survey question asked was designed to get a specific answer. However, playing the "glad game" for a moment, I'm sure we can now look forward to some proper and meaningful engagement with their stakeholders when it comes to discussing / deciding implementation ideas.
I live in hope ...
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
I'd suggest cashflow would be exactly the same because you're only renewing half your portfolio every year under the current arrangements as opposed to all your domains under a 1 year renewal period.
You and your company recently did some work for Uniregistry right? How does that fit in with you being a demand class director? Isn't that a bit conflicted when you work for or represent the supply side?
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
I am not a Demand Class director, I am a Supply Class director and yes I act for Uniregistry and many other registrars/resellers, that is well known.
Everyone also knows that I have a portfolio of domain names, so I am personally impacted by changes with direct registration - in fact I will be impacted more than most people on DnTrade. I can't see any conflict.......
Simon Johnson
Top Contributor
For those that haven't seen my comments here: http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20160418.htm
As most of you know:
As most of you know:
- I represent Demand Class and therefore DNTrade has a "seat at the table".
- I don't own or have an interest in a Registrar, Registry etc..
petermeadit
Top Contributor
A lot of the current dispute process will need to change and the eligibility requirements. Policy will need to be developed since there will be no 2nd level to determine the categories. Unless of course either pre-qualification or business and non-business entities are all openly allowed to register a .au regardless of the entity type. Since a direct registration offers no inherent way of determining the registration type, such as .com.au and org.au offer a way of knowing the entity type by looking at the name. So how will the name type be reserved for any entity type?
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Sorry EK, I thought you were on our side.
Yep there's no conflict if you are on the supply side. They're the ones that pay your bills so that's all good. It just puts your down playing of the changes in perspective on here. It's probably good to get the supply side view.
By the way why did you sack the CEO?
Yep there's no conflict if you are on the supply side. They're the ones that pay your bills so that's all good. It just puts your down playing of the changes in perspective on here. It's probably good to get the supply side view.
By the way why did you sack the CEO?
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
Thanks Bacon Farmer
Its not that I am down playing the changes that are happening, but I dont want people to jump to conclusions. As I said I am impacted like everyone else here, but I take the glass half full approach. I am also not one to run away and hide because something which many people on DnTrade dont like has been approved. Like I have for the past 12 years I stand ready to listen to everyone's concerns. I am really pleased that there is some good debate, lets talk about the issue.
There is still a long way to go with the implementation panel. I really hope that everyone from DnTrade puts their hand up to be involved in that process, while not everyone can be involved, I personally feel we must have domainers represented on this panel, like we did with the Names Policy Panel.
As for the CEO issue, it is not something I can discuss in a public forum as it is a confidential matter for the board. We have a strong Chairman and a great Acting CEO. There have been a lot of positive changes at auDA, and you will start to see many of these new changes rolling out through the year.
I am looking to arrange a drinks night soon, so that we can meet face to face and discuss concerns and issues arising from direct registration and anything else people want to talk about. I'll do a separate post about that soon.
As always I'm happy to hear from anyone, you can drop me an email or give me a call.
petermeadit
Top Contributor
Agree with Simon and Erhan. This is going to be a tough change. But is has been a long time coming. The process will most likely be complicated.
My main concern is the same as it always has been, I really hope existing domain name registrants get a fair go at the new names. Working through the process in communication with the directors will help ensure the fairest outcome.
My main concern is the same as it always has been, I really hope existing domain name registrants get a fair go at the new names. Working through the process in communication with the directors will help ensure the fairest outcome.
Community sponsors
Members online
No members online now.
