Have Your Say — Direct Registration

[snoopy]

That is in conflict with his statement made at the AGM!

Time for Board Spill if the whole Board is committed and not wanting to do further stakeholder engagement.

The existing and NEW board can overturn it. Don't be fooled.... auDA does want the extra $$$ an extra .au will give them to spend..

Can we pull up the text of that statement? I think a lot of people are wondering why the CEO has suddenly gone from cautiously looking at the proposal (seemingly against it) to trying to quickly push it through without even releasing the research they have had done.

 

[Scott.L]

To be fair, the CEO stated "the Board is committed to direct registrations" - he is simply reflecting the ongoing stance of the board.

 

[snoopy]

To be fair, the CEO stated "the Board is committed to direct registrations" - he is simply reflecting the ongoing stance of the board.

Yes, I get what you are saying, it seems a a change of stance to me from "We are deliberately taking our time to get this right because internationally the examples are not as strong as we think."

 

[Scott.L]

The statement "the Board is committed to direct registrations" raises the question. Why is the board fixed on implementing direct registrations? If the board is open-minded, a statement like - "the board is committed to undertaking all necessary due diligence into direct registration including an implementation plan" then the board would appear unbiased (rational) and sensible.

 

[snoopy]

The statement "the Board is committed to direct registrations" raises the question. Why is the board fixed on implementing direct registrations? If the board is open-minded, a statement like - "the board is committed to undertaking all necessary due diligence into direct registration including an implementation plan" then the board would appear unbiased (rational) and sensible.

Agree it is concern that the CEO/some board members seems to be trying to push straight through to implementation without even releasing the research on the business case,

The CEO's statement,

Board is committed to implementing direct registration “It is going to happen. It is just a matter of when and how.”

Versus the Panels comments,

He raised the issue of the Deloitte report being commissioned to see if there was a “business case” for direct registrations. This has not been released to members. John Swinson noted that it was open to the Panel to tell the auDA Board that, as a practical matter, direct registration could not be implemented.

I suspect there is vested interests at play trying to act as if the prior board vote is just a license to bring it in regardless of any due diligence.

 

[Scott.L]

I suspect there is vested interests at play trying to act as if the prior board vote is just a license to bring it in regardless of any due diligence.

I hope that's not true, it would be bad faith to hide or manipulate information by way of suppressing it to gain a financial advantage (directly or indirectly). Not only will those people be held accountable, serious charges could be brought against them.

 

[snoopy]

I hope that's not true, it would be bad faith to hide or manipulate information by way of suppressing it to gain a financial advantage (directly or indirectly). Not only will those people be held accountable, serious charges could be brought against them.

AUDA are the masters of withholding information from members & trying to limit discussion. We had to go to an SGM to sort that out last time in terms of both the hiding the minutes and attempting to restrict criticism with the code of conduct.

They must think we are silly to want us to talk implementing it while they won't even release the business case study.

 

[DomainNames]

"He raised the issue of the Deloitte report being commissioned to see if there was a “business case” for direct registrations. This has not been released to members. John Swinson noted that it was open to the Panel to tell the auDA Board that, as a practical matter, direct registration could not be implemented."

 

[Scott.L]

AUDA are the masters of withholding information from members & trying to limit discussion. We had to go to an SGM to sort that out last time in terms of both the hiding the minutes and attempting to restrict criticism with the code of conduct.
They must think we are silly to want us to talk implementing it while they won't even release the business case study.

auDA appears to hide behind a shield of "commercial in confidence" as a premise for non-disclosure to members and the public. In fact,the company at all times is a commercialized entity acting like a privately owned company rather than a NFP.

Why? I think auDA is socialized by directors who control privately owned companies and this influence has socialized the board to act accordingly. Both supply and demand side directors are from private company structures, most of the independent directors are from ASX entities, its actually rare to see an auDA director appointed from any well know NFP.

 

[DomainNames]

auDA appears to hide behind a shield of "commercial in confidence" as a premise for non-disclosure to members and the public. In fact,the company at all times is a commercialized entity acting like a privately owned company rather than a NFP.

Why? I think auDA is socialized by directors who control privately owned companies and this influence has socialized the board to act accordingly. Both supply and demand side directors are from private company structures, most of the independent directors are from ASX entities, its actually rare to see an auDA director appointed from any well know NFP.

I was schooled this week "Not for Profit does not mean they cannot make a profit...." Is it now $14 million in the auDA "Not For Profit" bank account...

With the PPB investigation and report hidden from us who knows the real amounts and where some of the money is?

I am surprised auDA was not set up as "Charity". It seems it may have been acting like one for some over the years.

 

[snoopy]

I was schooled this week "Not for Profit does not mean they cannot make a profit...." Is it now $14 million in the auDA "Not For Profit" bank account...

AUDA does not exist to make money, it exists to serve the Australian people. The motivations within the organisation are completely messed up.

This remind me of AUDA's answer to conflict of interest allegations. Where most members perceive one AUDA responds with an argument as to why *legally* it is not a conflict of interest.

 

[Scott.L]

Its only $10 bucks

The $10 cost argument is dead. It’s about the price paid by future registrants, not the current ones.

The proposed ‘.au’ is will simply promote false hope in people (Australian residents) seeking a decent domain, only to realise, 99% of the existing registrants allocated the ‘.au’ are (commercial enterprises) and are not going to give up their prized brand. Sure, 1% maybe 3% will release some crumbs to the market but that’s it.

realestate.au is likely to be allocated to the com.au registrant (it’s only fair). Over the next 2 years that registrant renews it for $10 every year (sounds cheap) until, a buyer makes a decent offer.

Established business.

a) Consider the real cost to your established business if you sell the non-utilised ‘.au’ extension? Its instant cash now (tempting), but will it balance the loss of earnings over the years to come.

b) only domain portfolio holders will have the flexibility to sell without a threat of loss of earning. in reality giving them the best seat in the house. (two for the price of one)

BUT, Consider this...

a) You (the seller) are now cashed up, you can develop your domain into the dream business you always wanted, but …you now have a competitor with the same name, in the same market, targeting the same customers.

b) You (the buyer) just paid top dollar for a domain name and gave the seller the capital to develop the same domain name to compete against you, in the same market, targeting the same customers.

Who in their right mind believes that’s a winning strategy?

99% of registrants will defensively register '.au' for $10 bucks (sounds cheap) and then those registrants can sell it to a future business for $1000s and keep the competing extension. Is it fair. No, it’s not fair for both the registrant who foolishly sold a domain for immediate capital only to realize he created a competitor, and its unfair for the buyer who foolishly gave the seller capital to potentially develop a prior underutilized domain and compete against them.

Now whilst I am against implementing this extension, I am open minded and willing to change my mind IF...(a) A very strong business case could be made beyond what is currently promoted. (b) the Australian Public is Broadly consulted and the people say "Yes".

.

 

[DomainNames]

Its only $10 bucks

The $10 cost argument is dead. It’s about the price paid by future registrants, not the current ones.

The proposed ‘.au’ is will simply promote false hope in people (Australian residents) seeking a decent domain, only to realise, 99% of the existing registrants allocated the ‘.au’ are (commercial enterprises) and are not going to give up their prized brand. Sure, 1% maybe 3% will release some crumbs to the market but that’s it.

realestate.au is likely to be allocated to the com.au registrant (it’s only fair). Over the next 2 years that registrant renews it for $10 every year (sounds cheap) until, a buyer makes a decent offer.

Established business.

a) Consider the real cost to your established business if you sell the non-utilised ‘.au’ extension? Its instant cash now (tempting), but will it balance the loss of earnings over the years to come.

b) only domain portfolio holders will have the flexibility to sell without a threat of loss of earning. in reality giving them the best seat in the house. (two for the price of one)

BUT, Consider this...

a) You (the seller) are now cashed up, you can develop your domain into the dream business you always wanted, but …you now have a competitor with the same name, in the same market, targeting the same customers.

b) You (the buyer) just paid top dollar for a domain name and gave the seller the capital to develop the same domain name to compete against you, in the same market, targeting the same customers.

Who in their right mind believes that’s a winning strategy?

99% of registrants will defensively register '.au' for $10 bucks (sounds cheap) and then those registrants can sell it to a future business for $1000s and keep the competing extension. Is it fair. No, it’s not fair for both the registrant who foolishly sold a domain for immediate capital only to realize he created a competitor, and its unfair for the buyer who foolishly gave the seller capital to potentially develop a prior underutilized domain and compete against them.

Now whilst I am against implementing this extension, I am open minded and willing to change my mind IF...(a) A very strong business case could be made beyond what is currently promoted. (b) the Australian Public is Broadly consulted and the people say "Yes".

.

• Was RealEstate.net.au registered before RealEstate.com.au?
• How about all those people who have bought .com.au names on the drop aftermarket with the new create date now being a date which is after the pre existing .net.au version? This means they would not get the .au as the current implementation plan states.
  
• Too many issues. John Swinson's advise is correct.
• How about abc.com.au verses abc.net.au verses abc.au?

To those who do not know the co.uk and co.nz have always been open to anyone register them in the world, no reserved names and no auctions, people could buy and sell them easily to anyone.

auDA was proud to run things completely differently to the .uk and .nz for so many years... so why the rush to follow me mentality now as justification for another competing extra .au extension like the failed .uk and failed .nz.. The REASON MORE MONEY $$$$

What 2017 and 2018 holds for auDA
1. https://www.communications.gov.au/documents/terms-reference-review-au-domain-administration

It will all I hope come out in the FIRST Government investigation and review 2018 and that may not even be the last one conducted. It will most probably then go to Senate hearings with different political parties being more involved, people being called in to answer questions on recorded tv etc.

2. NEXT in 2018.....?
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar.../Current_Inquiries#fndtn-tabSenate_Committees
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Current_Inquiries#fndtn-tabJoint_Committees

 

[snoopy]

auDA was proud to run things completely differently to the .uk and .nz for so many years... so why the rush to follow me mentality now as justification for another competing extra .au extension like the failed .uk and failed .nz.. The REASON MORE MONEY $$$$

Exactly right, the need to follow New Zealand's path isn't exactly compelling. Since when is this how Australia operates?

 

[DomainNames]

Just follow others into another new extension?

auDA don't jump.. let the others fall off the cliff!

You may be one of the survivors but as you can see it is impossible for them to climb back up to where they where doing very well before they jumped!

 

[DomainNames]

https://www.auda.org.au/blog/happy-new-year-from-the-ceo-at-auda/

"Global market assessment
At the end of last year, auDA commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to undertake a global market assessment and report back to us on the following:

• an update of their previous assessment on the economic contribution of the .au DNS
• assess if the .au DNS represents critical infrastructure
• further benchmarking of the impact of direct registrations, globally, to better inform the policy development for direct registration.

A number of individuals and organisations around the world have been contacted to undertake qualitative interviews. On completion, this report will be made available to the public."​

 

[snoopy]

A number of individuals and organisations around the world have been contacted to undertake qualitative interviews. On completion, this report will be made available to the public."​

That seems to have changed to "once we have pushed through .au we'll release the report".

The public absolutely should have access to this report for preparing their Panel submissions. Yet again AUDA is withholding information for its own benefit.

 

[neddy]

Just a reminder to anyone that hasn't made a submission to the Policy Review Panel - there are just 8 days left to do so.

I know there is lots of commentary on forums and blogs, but this doesn’t help the PRP. If you want your opinion to be heard and counted, then you simply have to make a submission.

Some people have told me that the questions are not user friendly. If you find that to be the case, then simply answer what you can. It’s vital that you express your point of view.

Ned

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Yes, some of the Issues Paper questions are a bit ambiguous! I was pleased to note that submissions are not confined to the questions (emphasis added):
“Stakeholders are invited to make submissions on any of the material contained in this discussion paper, including background material and analysis”.
https://www.auda.org.au/assets/pdf/2017PRP-03102017-directreg-issuespaper-WEB.pdf (page 6)

 

[snoopy]

Yes, some of the Issues Paper questions are a bit ambiguous! I was pleased to note that submissions are not confined to the questions (emphasis added):
“Stakeholders are invited to make submissions on any of the material contained in this discussion paper, including background material and analysis”.
https://www.auda.org.au/assets/pdf/2017PRP-03102017-directreg-issuespaper-WEB.pdf (page 6)

Yep, despite AUDA staff telling people that the merits are not to be revisited this is exactly what it is about.

Let your voice be heard on whether .AU should be scraped or not because AUDA is hoping to quietly skip to implementation without notifying the owners of the 3 million domains that this proposal would effect.

.AU is not a "done deal". That is the mantra of the AUDA inner circle who hope to push it through without public debate.