1. Welcome to DNTrade. If you want to find out about the latest domain name industry news or talk, share, learn, buy, sell, trade or develop domain names - then you've come to the right place. It's a diverse and active community, with domain investors, web developers and online marketers - and it's free! Click here to join now.
    Dismiss Notice

auDA member writes Open Letter to Senator Fifield on direct .au consultation

Discussion in 'Domain News' started by DomainNames, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    I think some auDA PRP members and a member of Supply may have awoken a very well connected Giant by shouting down auDA member Jim Stewart at the auDA PRP Melbourne Meeting.

    Jim has written a post today. Good on him for speaking up when so many others have not:

    https://stewartmedia.com.au/open-letter-to-senator-fifield-on-direct-au-consultation/

    "Senator,

    I refer to the attached correspondence from your office received from one of our viewers. auDA – Policy Review

    I quote “In September 2107, auDA established a multi-stakeholder advisory panel” . The very first order of business for this panel was to become “multi-stakeholder” by filling the position of Peak Business Body Representative, which still remains unfilled.

    From the minutes of the Panel’s first meeting.

    “(1) Peak business body representative: John Swinson advised members that he had not received any expressions of interest for the position of peak business body representative. Panel members made various suggestions to fill this vacancy. John Swinson thanked the members for their suggestions but noted that he was in discussions with several peak bodies. He advised members that if he was unable to fill the position that he would recommend to the auDA Board that the TORs are revised to include a corporate representative.”

    Literally, the first thing discussed by the panel was to full this role.

    This week I have been in discussion with the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, The Victorian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the NSW Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the Council of Small Business Australia, the Committee for Economic Development Australia and the National Retailers Association. Together these bodies would represent the majority of Australia’s business community.

    None of these organisations are aware of direct .AU implementation and the changes to Australia’s namespace.

    Why does your office continue to state “multi-stakeholder” when the main stakeholder group, the group with the majority of domain name owners, is not represented at all?

    Is your office aware of any industry bodies AUDA has approached to fill the position on the Panel?

    Why is business being excluded from these discussions considering it’s the biggest change to the Australian namespace in 20 years?"​
     
    snoopy and Bacon Farmer like this.
  2. Bacon Farmer

    Bacon Farmer Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    945
    Shorter version:

    "the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry,
    The Victorian Chamber of Commerce & Industry,
    the NSW Chamber of Commerce & Industry,
    the Council of Small Business Australia,
    the Committee for Economic Development Australia and
    the National Retailers Association..."

    "None of these organisations are aware of direct .AU implementation and the changes to Australia’s namespace."
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  3. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    auDA Management and the auDA PRP has completely failed to properly consult, advise and engage with these organisations and also the equally important 3 million existing .au domain name registrants owner consumers who have been paying auda and auDA Foundation hidden charges and fees for up to 18 years.
     
    Bacon Farmer likes this.