Election Statement Thread
- Thread starter Data Glasses
- Start date
Shane
Top Contributor
Shane
Top Contributor
Thanks mate.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Hi Tim, Nicole, Shane, Jim, Simon, Erhan.
I hope you had the chance to talk to Deloitte for the auDA "consultation".
Previously you had many auDA member votes backing you on the issue against another competing .au extension so auDA, auDA Board, auDA Committees, Federal Government and Deloitte should listen to you and properly record it.
Now we have the true facts of the failed .uk and .nz this MUST be taken into account. It means many claims including some by auDA board and committee members are now proven false, misleading and invalid.
______________
auDA board and committee member Melbourne IT claimed in their yes only survey vote stacking email solicitation the .UK and .NZ has been very successful and thus the new proposed competing .au would be equally successful. This is not true. It is in my view False and Misleading plus a Conflict of Interest for them to put out this material themselves and via their associated entities TPP wholesale etc. I see this and the way they did it with no option for a no vote as grounds for removal of them from the auDA board and Committee. Will auDA do anything... it seems no auDA will also make more money!
The official facts of registration, renewal and non renewal show the extra .uk and .nz extensions have both failed.
auDA, auDA board and Deloitte have those facts what have they done to recognise the facts?
Self Regulation does not work when one party "supply" has more power. Supply has had that power for too long and of course their intentions are more profits...The Australian consumer has been ripped off for too long by monopolies and self regulated bodies who often set minimum pricing, rigged surveys or processes, panels, committees and policy.
I hope you had the chance to talk to Deloitte for the auDA "consultation".
Previously you had many auDA member votes backing you on the issue against another competing .au extension so auDA, auDA Board, auDA Committees, Federal Government and Deloitte should listen to you and properly record it.
Now we have the true facts of the failed .uk and .nz this MUST be taken into account. It means many claims including some by auDA board and committee members are now proven false, misleading and invalid.
______________
auDA board and committee member Melbourne IT claimed in their yes only survey vote stacking email solicitation the .UK and .NZ has been very successful and thus the new proposed competing .au would be equally successful. This is not true. It is in my view False and Misleading plus a Conflict of Interest for them to put out this material themselves and via their associated entities TPP wholesale etc. I see this and the way they did it with no option for a no vote as grounds for removal of them from the auDA board and Committee. Will auDA do anything... it seems no auDA will also make more money!
The official facts of registration, renewal and non renewal show the extra .uk and .nz extensions have both failed.
auDA, auDA board and Deloitte have those facts what have they done to recognise the facts?
Self Regulation does not work when one party "supply" has more power. Supply has had that power for too long and of course their intentions are more profits...The Australian consumer has been ripped off for too long by monopolies and self regulated bodies who often set minimum pricing, rigged surveys or processes, panels, committees and policy.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Looking at the demand member list and cross checking it with supply members friends, family, staff, related business entities etc I feel the issue around membership stacking is a serious one.
Would it be in the interests of supply members to stack the demand side also for just $22 to give them more votes which would offer them an increased benefit? Meaning if you are in supply and you want the direct .au registrations to come in could you just have a lot of people sign up in both supply and demand and stack it in your favour? I suggest this may has happened in addition to the yes only voting surveys etc put out.
Which demand candidates did all of the supply linked demand members vote for? What was those demand candidates positions on direct registrations? Did they state any position or what is their position now with the .UK AND ,.NZ official failure results of lack of registrations and increased non renewals in both extensions.
Maybe this is why auDA has frozen all new auDA memberships.. or why have they done this? Are they panning to make it FREE and open to all domain name registrants only to stop the stacking and be fairer?
99.9% of Australian domain name owners do not know who auDA is or how to vote or do any surveys on issues which affect them. This is because auDA, auDA board has not engaged these registrants properly. These 1.8 million australian domain name registrant consumers keep auDA, Ausregistry in business. They deserve to be members if they choose and have input and full transparent and accountable information provided to them.
Canada membership is FREE and open to all registrants.
https://cira.ca/membership/benefits
https://cira.ca/membership/member-activities
Does auDA really think the existing 1 million+ existing .com.au domain name owners want a competing .au extension to the name they have now? Realestate.com.au verses Realestate.au, News.com.au verses News.au etc ? How about auDA emails them all and correctly surveys them by providing real facts plus also discloses the true 2015/2016 .uk and .nz failure numbers proving they have not been successful as claimed by some auDA board supply members and their related entities.
Some people and entities may also wish to retract their claims the proposed competing ,.au extension and othet newer TLDS's will be better for SEO and google results. Google has said claims such as this are false and in one case that the party making those claims should know a lot better than to make them. If any auDA board member made such claims or others which have not been correct auDA should request they issue a formal public retraction and post it on the auDA website no matter who they are or their size and "market power".
Who is "guaranteed" to make more money from another competing .au extension and who has pushed it the most? auDA? Any auDA Board members, auDA members, contract suppliers or associated entities?
Would it be in the interests of supply members to stack the demand side also for just $22 to give them more votes which would offer them an increased benefit? Meaning if you are in supply and you want the direct .au registrations to come in could you just have a lot of people sign up in both supply and demand and stack it in your favour? I suggest this may has happened in addition to the yes only voting surveys etc put out.
Which demand candidates did all of the supply linked demand members vote for? What was those demand candidates positions on direct registrations? Did they state any position or what is their position now with the .UK AND ,.NZ official failure results of lack of registrations and increased non renewals in both extensions.
Maybe this is why auDA has frozen all new auDA memberships.. or why have they done this? Are they panning to make it FREE and open to all domain name registrants only to stop the stacking and be fairer?
99.9% of Australian domain name owners do not know who auDA is or how to vote or do any surveys on issues which affect them. This is because auDA, auDA board has not engaged these registrants properly. These 1.8 million australian domain name registrant consumers keep auDA, Ausregistry in business. They deserve to be members if they choose and have input and full transparent and accountable information provided to them.
Canada membership is FREE and open to all registrants.
https://cira.ca/membership/benefits
https://cira.ca/membership/member-activities
Does auDA really think the existing 1 million+ existing .com.au domain name owners want a competing .au extension to the name they have now? Realestate.com.au verses Realestate.au, News.com.au verses News.au etc ? How about auDA emails them all and correctly surveys them by providing real facts plus also discloses the true 2015/2016 .uk and .nz failure numbers proving they have not been successful as claimed by some auDA board supply members and their related entities.
Some people and entities may also wish to retract their claims the proposed competing ,.au extension and othet newer TLDS's will be better for SEO and google results. Google has said claims such as this are false and in one case that the party making those claims should know a lot better than to make them. If any auDA board member made such claims or others which have not been correct auDA should request they issue a formal public retraction and post it on the auDA website no matter who they are or their size and "market power".
Who is "guaranteed" to make more money from another competing .au extension and who has pushed it the most? auDA? Any auDA Board members, auDA members, contract suppliers or associated entities?
