What's new

AUDA about to hand Ausregistry another 5 years?

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Fair suck of the sav Sean. First board meeting - and yes, it's apparent he got "handled" (as Bacon Farmer suggested). But he'll learn from that. Even if he opposed it, it would have been approved "almost unanimously".

If he stands down, all they will do is appoint one of their "selected candidates" to replace him. And then laugh at the domainer community.

I think Tim is genuine in what he has said, and I'm for one am prepared to give him the benefit of an "inauguration by fire". He'll do better next time.

Tim can answer for himself Ned. He told me he did vote against the Registry tender and went along with the others. ... this is not what I had expected he would do... will he do it again on the proposed direct .au registration issue?

We do appreciate you put him forward and many votes went his way with your direction but this is a serious matter.

The registry tender needs to be open, public, transparent . Anything less is anti competitive behaviour and reflects poorly on the new management and board.

As a domain name "consumer" and also a domain name reseller I expect the best product at the best price etc not another signed off monopoly decision.

There may be some Australian owned companies who want to go for the tender. Who know what they may offer unless it goers to tender?

Ned I expect you to stand up also on this issue and the importance of a tender or Expressions of interest. I think we where both had been told the registry would go to tender within the last 2 weeks at least I was told that.

Other countries who have gone to tender have seen great benefits for security improvements, better pricing and a lot of other features. Without competition suppliers become complacent and lazy and most often they just focus on their own profits. That is NOT what Australia needs for this Critical Infrastructure.

The fact is the Department of Communications could do the job or both auDA and Ausregistry. Too much money has been wasted over the last 15 years and too many conflicts of interest exposed. the Dept of Comms has the infrastructure, security, staff and perhaps far better reporting and accountability.

https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-awards-registry-tender-to-registrarsasia-subsidiary/
" Six companies responded to auDA’s Request for Tender to provide registry services for all 2LDs on offer. The tenders were evaluated by an independent panel according to the financial, technical and other criteria set out in the RFT documentation. "

auDA REGISTRY COMPETITION REVIEW PANEL
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/rcrp-public1.pdf

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=c...rd=ssl#q=auda+expression+of+interest+registry
__

This is a possible example how things do need to be done
http://www.financeminister.gov.au/m...est-asic-registry-tender-process-now-underway
"Over 30 potential bidders responded to the registration of interest. The level and quality of responses received was strong."
 

neddy

Top Contributor


We do appreciate you put him forward and many votes went his way with your direction but this is a serious matter.
Sean, please be accurate when you mention my name. I didn't put Tim forward - if you check the records, you will see who did. But I certainly supported him (as did most other people on here).

All I'm suggesting is let's give Tim a fair go. Monday was a baptism of fire for him; and he got handled by masters. Let's see what happens next time.

It's also important to remember that he is not our puppet - he is our representative. And I genuinely believe he will ultimately do a far better job representing our interests than others that promised to (but didn't).
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Wtf has happened to transparency and accountability

Ned, I don't really think things are any different to the past. The new CEO talks and listens, but he is politician, he is trained to make sure people think they are being listened to, but I do not think the actual outcomes will be any different. The main problem with AUDA is actually the board in my view. Didn't they appoint the CEO? Wouldn't they just appoint someone favourable to them?

Pretty sure he has been brought in to push their agendas,

"Previously Mr Boardman led the policy development on behalf of the Victorian Government regarding the implementation of the .melbourne domain."

https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda/
 

neddy

Top Contributor
The new CEO talks and listens, but he is politician, he is trained to make sure people think they are being listened to, but I do not think the actual outcomes will be any different.

Unfortunately, this seems to be increasingly the case. I'm very disappointed by how I was initially engaged by Cameron (I thought he was a breath of fresh air) - only to find that what is said; and what is done; seem to be two different things.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Unfortunately, this seems to be increasingly the case. I'm very disappointed by how I was initially engaged by Cameron (I thought he was a breath of fresh air) - only to find that what is said; and what is done; seem to be two different things.

A purely economic decision, what’s the point of going to tender when Austregistry has known infrastructure to support the DNS - Just as it was in 2008 when the market fell like a knife and the tender process was probably withdrawn due to lack of confidence in obtaining a provider as qualified as Austregistry. Industry advisory panel 2012 was a long time ago, and those that questioned the motive of the CEO at the time Ausregistry was re-contracted should have been more informed about the economic conditions that led to this decision.

And again, economic conditions have change dramatically over the past year, and a possible recession is likely 2017. The quick decision made by the current CEO to award Austregistry the tender is a good example of preventing a possible unknown failing to provide future service stability in the DNS during difficult financial times.

Does that mean the current CEO is right in opposing the board’s 2013 decision to ratify the recommendation? NO but in doing so he makes a strong case against any realistic business case for direct .au implementation if given the current state of economic conditions is his reasoning for doing so.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
And again, economic conditions have change dramatically over the past year, and a possible recession is likely 2017. The quick decision made by the current CEO to award Austregistry the tender is a good example of preventing a possible unknown failing to provide future service stability in the DNS during difficult financial times.

Does that mean the current CEO is right in opposing the board’s 2013 decision to ratify the recommendation? NO but in doing so he makes a strong case against any realistic business case for direct .au implementation if given the current state of economic conditions is his reasoning for doing so.

The stability point is a good once, because if they stuffed it up they'd probably all be losing their positions, the organisation is probably one or two big mistakes away from being taken over by the government at the moment, I'd bet money that the government has already put them on notice. Yeah I know, the discussion of a government takeover sounds like "crazy talk", but AUDA is an absolute basket case right now.

Think about the CEO's comments at the AGM,

The CEO advised that he wanted to finish with a quote from the former Nokia CEO that was given at their last AGM:

"We didn't do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost".

Nokia has gone from an organisation with 17,000 employees and billions of dollars of revenue to effectively non-existent.
  1. The CEO advised that unless we recognise the changing environment, unless we improve our governance and administration, unless we are being transparent and responsive to stakeholder needs, unless we are thinking about where auDA really has a place internationally, he doesn't want to be giving a similar send off in 12 months' time.
Re the financial stuff I think the problem here is that any prediction of recession next year is not a mainstream viewpoint, so the chance of the CEO and the AUDA's board seeing it like this is very low in my view. I think we'll soon see them try and push ahead with .au.

I suspect though the most likely reason for not doing a tender is that they simply couldn't be bothered, too much work for no obvious benefit to AUDA's balance statement or their own job security.
 

Lemon

Top Contributor
A purely economic decision, what’s the point of going to tender when Austregistry has known infrastructure to support the DNS
True.
However we are still waiting for 1 - 5 year renewals which were approved by the board and still have not been implemented. I hope that Ausregistry has that in their tender document as well as scope for other options like locking domains, private contatcts etc.

The point in going to tender is that auda would have more bargaining power to drive costs down. I can't see how some of the bigger players wouldn't be interested in tendering and they would have the technical expertise as well.

Why would the board put Ausregistry in the driving seat?

As a side note I note that George Pongas of Ausregistry is a board member as is Kartic Srinivasan of MelbourneIT not that it is of any relevance.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
Some new audio clips from the AGM have just been posted on Domainer.

In the third snippet, Sean asks about memberships and the previously proposed registry tender. Given the furore over the AusRegistry announcement yesterday, you might find some of the CEO’s comments quite interesting. In retrospect, he chose his words rather carefully. The art of being an ex-politician!
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
This is interesting ASIC DATABASE TENDER ....
Would some Get Up campaigns about the auDA proposed .au Direct registrations and Registry Tender be of interest to anyone? Of the 1.8 million current Australian domain name registrants plus others it may be interesting if they could be contacted to petition.

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/...ic-petition/turnbull-s-attack-on-transparency
Turnbull's attack on transparency

The Turnbull Government has been working behind closed doors to privatise Australia's corporate database. But momentum is building to stop the sell off.
Watch this video from award-winning investigative journalist Michael West, then add your name to the 75,000-strong petition.

It's a move that could see journalists, academics, and advocacy groups lose access to the

Expressions of Interest for ASIC Registry Tender
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=N0tRWPbEC9DN8ge04pAY&gws_rd=ssl#q=asic+database+tender
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
From 10 years ago!! Come on auDA get serious or let the Federal Government take it over
This really shows up some serious issues...

Perhaps the auDA board needs to have restrictions on who can be a member and in a power position?

Something is just not adding up for transparency and " Best Practice". Domain name registrants are consumers.. They have rights also about their domain name registrations, pricing, "anti competitive behaviour" etc

https://www.auda.org.au/industry-information/registry/registry-tender/
Registry Tender

On 30 June 2006 the current registry licence held by AusRegistry expires.


On 29 August 2005 auDA issued a Request for Tender for a four year licence agreement for the provision of registry services in .au second level domains, commencing 1 July 2006.

auDA announced AusRegistry as the preferred tenderer on 28 October 2005.

auDA signed a new 4 year licence agreement with AusRegistry on 18 November 2005.
Tender Documents
The RFT comprises seven Parts. Each Part is available for separate download (PDF) below. Each Part must be read in conjunction with the other Parts of the RFT.

RFT Front Page and Table of Contents
RFT Part One – Preliminaries
RFT Part Two – Background Information
RFT Part Three – Evaluation Process and Criteria
RFT Part Four – Terms and Conditions of Tender
RFT Part Five – The Schedules – also available as a Word document
RFT Part Six – Technical Specification
RFT Part Seven – Registry Licence Agreement
RFT Addendum No 1 (issued 20/09/05)

RFT Questions and Answers
auDA considered the following questions about the RFT from a number of enquirers, in accordance with the terms and conditions of tender. The questions have been published in the table below as they were submitted, without amendment.

The responses provided by auDA are provided for clarification purposes only, and do not constitute an addenda to, or in any way amend the RFT.

auDA has responded to the questions with reference to the RFT, and, in particular, the Evaluation Process and Criteria in Part Three of the RFT. auDA’s answers in no way indicate whether a tender, or any information proposed to constitute part of the tender, will be favourably or adversely considered by auDA, irrespective of whether such indication is sought by the enquiring party.
Question No
Question
auDA’s Response

1
With respect to the evaluation criteria set out in Part 5 Schedule 2 Clause 2.1, relating to a respondent’s ‘proven capacity to manage a domain name registry or a comparable registry, or experience in DNS operations, we note that the Australian incorporated entities of leading global operators such as VeriSign Inc. could be argued to have no experience in running a comparable registry. Could auDA confirm that the extensive capability and experience of our parent company – if it decided to commit itself to assisting the Australian entity – in managing the world’s largest and/or most complex domain name operations in the world will be favourably considered under the evaluation process? We believe that such an assurance will make a substantial contribution to a competitive evaluation process that will provide Australia with access to global best practice capability in this area.
The capability and experience of Related Bodies Corporate, to the extent that it is relevant to the RFT, will be considered under the evaluation process. A Respondent in this position should explain how it receives, or would receive, the benefit of the experience of its Related Bodies Corporate.
2
We note the minimum threshold requirements set out in Part 3 Clause 7 of the RFT. Can auDA confirm that tenderers will receive no additional weighting or scoring by differentiating their bids through the provision of superior technical solutions (Clause 7.4.1) and enhanced business model proposals (Clause 7.5.1)? Are we correct in understanding that tenderers are encouraged not to compete by providing their best possible solution on these mandatory elements and focus instead on the Evaluation Criteria set out in Clause 8.2?.
By definition, threshold requirements are either met or not met. However, while meeting the Technical Specification is not an Evaluative Criteria, auDA believes that the technical solution or solutions proposed by a Respondent are likely to affect the Respondent’s responses under the Evaluative Criteria. Therefore, auDA expects Respondents to put forward their best possible solution or choice of solutions, within the parameters of the RFT.
3
VeriSign Australia understands that transition is an important risk factor in any evaluation process that centres on business continuity of a registry. Against that background, can auDA confirm whether Part 3 Clause 9.2.1 presumes that the incumbent operator AusRegistry will have the best Transition Plan? If so, can auDA also confirm whether the highest ranked tenderer in relation to the Evaluation Criteria set out in Clause 8.2 could lose to a tenderer with a less highly ranked bid but a perceived advantage in terms of the Transition Plan. Furthermore could a bidder not score highly on its transition plan if it was not compatible with the plan of AusRegistry, even if it was not familiar with those plans because they are not public.
As explained in Part Five Clause 3, the Transition Plan is a “detailed plan to transition Registry Services from AusRegistry (that is, the incumbent Registry operator) to the Respondent, and the migration of Registry data from AusRegistry to the Respondent by 30 June 2006.” Accordingly, if AusRegistry responds to the RFT, auDA does not expect that it will provide a Transition Plan. In the event of transition evaluation under Part Three Clause 9.2.2, it is possible that the Preferred Respondent ranked highest after stage two will not be the successful Respondent. Under the AusRegistry RLA, AusRegistry is required to cooperate with auDA and the successor Registry Operator to facilitate a smooth transition. Therefore, if AusRegistry is not the successful Respondent, transition will occur pursuant to the successful Respondent’s transition plan.
etc
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Some new audio clips from the AGM have just been posted on Domainer.

In the third snippet, Sean asks about memberships and the previously proposed registry tender. Given the furore over the AusRegistry announcement yesterday, you might find some of the CEO’s comments quite interesting. In retrospect, he chose his words rather carefully. The art of being an ex-politician!

At the auDA AGM Cameron Boardman the new auDA CEO said the registry tender will go out to "Expressions of Interest" this is very different to "Exclusive negotiations with Ausregistry" as they have now released notice of.

They are totally different meanings in fact.

As paying auDA members Where we mislead at the AGM? I feel I was.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/misuse-of-market-power
ACCC Misuse of market power

A business with a substantial degree of power in a market is not allowed to use this power for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor or to prevent a business from entering into a market. This behaviour is referred to as ‘misuse of market power’.

Misuse of market power test
Misuse of market power test
The possession of market power of itself is not unlawful.
To determine whether there has been a misuse of market power, the courts will consider three questions:
  • does the company have substantial market power?
  • is it taking advantage of that power?
  • is it using the power for an illegal purpose?
Substantial market power
Market power is the ability of a business to insulate itself from competition.

The market may be considered by asking three questions:
  • which products are sufficiently close substitutes (the relevant product market)?
  • which other businesses are sufficiently nearby to compete effectively (the relevant geographic market)?
  • what is the functional level of the market (this relates to the stage(s) in the production/distribution process covered by a market)?
Within that market a business’s market power may be determined by a combination of factors such as:
  • how difficult it is for competitors to enter the market
  • the business’s ability to behave with little regard to what its competitors, suppliers or customers do
  • the market share of the business
  • the financial strength of the business
  • the ability of the business to consistently restrict competition.
Taking advantage of market power
In determining whether, by engaging in conduct, a business has taken advantage of its substantial degree of power in a market, the court may have regard to the following factors:
  • whether the conduct was materially facilitated by the business's substantial degree of power in the market
  • whether the business engaged in the conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of power in the market
  • whether it’s likely that the business would have engaged in the conduct if it did not have a substantial degree of power in the market
  • whether the conduct is otherwise related to the business's substantial degree of power in the market.
Illegal purpose
It is not illegal to have market power or to use it. Conduct by a business with market power is only a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) if it is carried out for an illegal purpose.

The CCA spells out illegal purposes as follows:

  • eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor
  • preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market
  • deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in any market.
The courts have established that the illegal purpose need not be the only purpose, nor even a dominant purpose, of the conduct in question. It is enough that it be one of the purposes, and a substantial one.

Predatory pricing
One way in which a business may misuse its market power is to set prices at a sufficiently low level with the purpose of substantially damaging or eliminating a competitor. This is known as predatory pricing.

Relevant sections of the Competition and Consumer Act
s.46 — Misuse of market power (link is external)
Report potential misuse of market power
Contact the ACCC
http://www.directory.gov.au/directory?ea0_lfz99_120.&&56183875-7b64-445e-aa3e-386b5469c45c
Chairman and Agency Head
Mr Rod Sims

Location 23 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra ACT 2601
Postal Address GPO Box 3131 Canberra ACT 2601
Telephone (02) 6243 1111
Fax (02) 6243 1199

rod.sims@accc.gov.au
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
The reason for calling a tender is to get a better deal. Competition drives better deals.

Forgoing a tender means they aren't doing their job by allowing all options to be considered.

The directors have a duty to get the best deal.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
....Someone must have known the Ausregistry Neustar sell off and delisting was coming before yesterday..... is this why they rushed in their unsolicited offer submission to auDA recently to get it renewed before news of their sale was released? Did they disclose it in their submission to auDA?

auDA has jumped the gun on 2 major issues recently with their press releases... whoever is doing that and authorising it probably needs to be removed or resign. It causes damage and now egg on the face of auDA and the board of Directors again...... Let's remember auDA proudly saying it was a unanimous decision by the board... well that's a unanimous mistake to make.
https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-enters-exclusive-negotiations-with-ausregistry/
auDA enters exclusive negotiations with AusRegistry
( Neustar Inc.... a foreign owned corporation soon to delist from the USA stock exchange and sell itself off...)

Posted by Helen Hollins on 13 December 2016

The Board of auDA has unanimously resolved to enter into a period of exclusive negotiation with AusRegistry for the management of auDA’s registry operations beyond 2018.

On 14 November AusRegistry made an unsolicited offer to continue those services beyond the current contract.

auDA is seeking a best-in-class operator’s arrangement focussed on an enhanced security and technical setting and a rigorous process is underway to test the value, accountability and performance impacts of these initiatives.

auDA reserves the right to conduct a market exercise if negotiations do not achieve these outcomes.
Media contact
Helen Hollins
helen.hollins@auda.org.au

Chances are the new owners will flip it again and take out the profits again.... That creates no security for Australia or the Australian domain name registrant consumers. auDA and Australia cannot risk it again.

auDA and the auDA board of Directors have jumped head first into very dangerous waters twice now without proper due diligence before they made announcements of "full steam ahead"....

Let's not forget the fate of the Titanic as it sailed into an iceberg and the disaster that followed. It was the biggest and the best... but whats hidden under the waters can destroy it.

auDA is currently that Titanic on the same course to disaster so it appears. There mistakes have already affected new .com.au and .net.au registrations, renewals and investments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic

"Titanic received six warnings of sea ice on 14 April but was travelling near her maximum speed when her lookouts sighted the iceberg."
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top