auDA Policy Review Review Panel Interim Report 15 May 2018

[Bacon Farmer]

Members would have received an email with a link to the report. See below:

https://auda.org.au/assets/Policies/auDA-Policy-Review-Panel-Interim-Report-15-May-2015.pdf

Apparently the PRP thought putting up a 'straw person' model up at the public consultations back in February was a good idea.

I'll never trust anything the PRP says again.

"The Panel looks forward to continuing its dialogue with the Australian public during the future consultation process, as detailed below."

I look forward to treating the PRP with the same disrespect.

Denigrating the vast bulk of anti direct registrations submissions as short on evidence and therefore of not much consequence is pretty disappointing to say the least. It's just more auDA pushing it's own agenda and disregarding anything to the contrary.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

The justification for direct registrations is pretty funny:

"The Panel considers that some of the key benefits of direct registration in the .au name space are as follows:

• Fewer restrictions: The Panel proposes that .au would be an unbounded space. The Panel proposes that domain names directly registered under .au will have no eligibility or allocation criteria, other than an Australian presence requirement. This will allow users to define their own purpose for their domain name, rather than being constrained by eligibility and allocation rules of the current spaces.

• Trustworthy: The existing 2LDs in the .au name space are considered highly trustworthy. They signify a uniquely Australian source, which is subject to Australian regulation, jurisdiction and enforcement. Domain names registered directly under .au will also have a strong Australian connection."

Wow these two points really highlight the stupidity of the panel. The .com.au is trusted because it is restricted.

Here's another:
"Competitiveness overseas: Direct registration will help to promote the .au brand outside of Australia. This assists Australian businesses who market or supply their goods and services outside of Australia."

How? Is there a business case or any evidence for this little gem?

It gets better:

"Choice: Direct registration will provide consumers, businesses, not-for-profit organisations and new entrants to the Australian domain name space with more choice."

Um if choice is a reason for direct registrations, why get rid of .net.au's? Why do consumers want or need a domain name, to make their own facebook? Not for profits, don't they have .org.au? New entrants already have .com.au or is every variation taken?

 

[DomainNames]

3 million .au registered verses 140 million .com registered.

The rigged and biased auDA PRP is making up pure Bullshi$ saying another extension is needed or justified.... and again making claims and statements with no facts to back them up.

No matter what is written in submissions they will ignore it if it is against what they want.
.nz failed
.uk failed

They won't accept any factual data and NONE of them have any names in the .uk or .nz namespace or any experience in them...

Pure profit motives before Melbourne IT tries to sell off or transfer its domain name business maybe to TUCOWS or some other investor who will be fed B.S. on the extra $$ they can look forward to?

Carsales.com and REA Group submissions have again been totally ignored as has anyone else against it.

Having different rules for .com.au and .au would see offshore scammers flourish. ..This is the case already for .hk and .sg where they have conflicting rules. The result the overall namespaces struggle badly and they cant go back to fixing it.

The current PRP simply do not get it and seemingly never will. They didn't listen to Luke Summers or his feedback and his statement why he resigned shows the facts it is rigged.

https://www.theluckycountry.com.au/...gnation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel.pdf

Sack the PRP and www.Grumpier.com.au Resolutions seem to be the solutions to bring in stability again.

Nothing has changed since the last Grumpy campaign attached it seems auDA wanted deleted from internet history and auDA members memories!

 

[DomainNames]

When is auDA and the PRP planning to contact the 90,000+ conflicted existing .au domain name registrant owners to tell them the full facts, implementation suggestions and how they will be affected?

Is this why auDA and the PRP refuse to release the auDA PRP public meeting audio and powerpoint slides?

ANYONE who listens to the full Sydney and Melbourne audio will be very concerned. Add to that the Perth and Brisbane audio, what thw PRP said and it would be doubtful auDA would exist under current management at all.

 

[Scott.L]

I remember a time when the domain investor [domainer] was a huge part of the health of the .au domain registration market. Domainers register and renew hundreds of thousands of domains annually with the expectation of making a profit on those registrations. Now I get the feeling the PRP must really hate the aftermarket, if it didn't, it would have found policy outcomes to attract investment in the aftermarket, instead of finding ways to murder it.

 

[DomainNames]

auDA seems to have stated this before in their documents including in 2010;

"auDA’s jurisdiction arguably does not extend to checking or controlling the content of websites."

 

[DomainNames]

Some crazy old auDA policy makers suggestions for the .au namespace:

QUOTED

"BT ( Bruce Tonkin Melbourne IT) proposed a model to facilitate implementation of a secondary market in a way that addresses concerns about equity and access, domain speculation and warehousing, and other potential negative effects. He suggested the following:

• an initial centralised market, with all sales listed on a public website
• domain names cannot be transferred in the first 6 months of registration
• cap on the number of domain names that a registrant can transfer per annum
• domain names must be listed for 30 days before sale to allow time for any objections from trademark holders​

• the registrant must advertise a fixed upfront price

• a transfer fee is payable to auDA, to cover the cost of monitoring the market
• sale price must be published on the site and notified to auDA
• a built-in 6 month review mechanism."​

 

[DomainNames]

Easy to see why there are 140 million + .com names and growing daily registered with suggestions such as those for the .au namespace even being submitted and making it into documents or taken seriously.

Now we see some of the same words "warehousing" etc making it into the 2018 PRP documents...

Clearly there are some problems with a handful of people understanding the global domain name market and that auDA does not run the internet. The internet will exist without auDA.. they seem to be creating more problems over the years than any other namespace.

If auDA and panels make it too hard and unstable people will choose other extensions which have none of the crap auDA has been coming up with.

auDA and the PRP are the ones creating the unstable .au namespace, hurting investment in it and detrimentally affecting the chance of higher registration numbers.

 

[Scott.L]

• Fewer restrictions: The Panel proposes that .au would be an unbounded space.

1. Well if its only applicable to Australian residents then how is that an unbounded space; its restricted.

The Panel proposes that domain names directly registered under .au will have no eligibility or allocation criteria, other than an Australian presence requirement.

2. refer to 1.

This will allow users to define their own purpose for their domain name, rather than being constrained by eligibility and allocation rules of the current spaces.

Exactly, this is the problem with .au it contains no distinct identity and its repugnant to those that do. Also, restricting the namespace to assign rights to minorities is not considered a free market, nope that's called monopolism. [disguised as political accommodation]

i noticed in the PRP letter re: Clarification on domain monetisation;

Feedback, including from sophisticated businesses, domain brokers and portfolio owners, was one could register almost any domain name under the Domain Monetisation rule, and that the current rules were unclear, and that domain names were being registered under the cover of Monetisation primarily for the purposes of resale or warehousing (which is contrary to the current policy).

Tell me what Domain Broker or Portfolio holder would honestly say that? they are the sellers and warehouses for premium names - who at the initial auDA auctions when auDA released domains to the highest bidder spent thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars buying premium names.

No hierarchy of rights means, he who has the deepest wallet wins. Now those hierarchy of rights have been distributed fairly according to the rules in place and their interpretation has been naturally exploited. The PRP should stop focusing on demonizing the aftermarket speculators and allow the secondary market to function freely through localized open market policies. unfortunately, these policy outcomes appear as thou the PRP are deafened by the screams of anti-domainers with a grudge.

 

[snoopy]

If auDA and panels make it too hard and unstable people will choose other extensions which have none of the crap auDA has been coming up with.

auDA and the PRP are the ones creating the unstable .au namespace, hurting investment in it and detrimentally affecting the chance of higher registration numbers.

Agree, people should be worried about what auDA will suggest next, suggesting retrospective rule changes should be sending chills through the whole industry. Only the drop catchers would benefit from making registrations invalid.

 

[Scott.L]

auDA PRP - it is acceptable to indefinitely lock-up a maximum of around 90,000 SLDs to protect existing domain name licensees.

The PRP stated:

A Priority Applicant is a person who holds an Australian domain name licence for a domain name at a Contestable Level (which is the third level, fourth level or fifth level)

This raises a huge Question:
10. Any fee for the purchase of an SLD Token will be determined by the auDA Board.

The tokens must be bought? So, those at the contestable level 3rd, 4th, 5th, have each paid for a token that may not be converted to the Direct Registration until they have resolved it amongst themselves? Until then, its permanently locked out.

auDA is going to fleece registrants on a product the registrant never actually gets?

Example:
90,000 conflicts which are contestable at 3rd, 4th, 5th level each pay $10? for the token = $30 raised from each level and NONE actually are entitled to the 2nd level domain.

Estimated Total of $2,700,000.00 of free money to auDA for a product none will get, because the 2nd level name is contested by reason of its registration.

...am I reading this right? if so, to be fair, the Board should not apply any fee for these tokens.

 

[snoopy]

Is it an illegal lottery?

 

[Scott.L]

14. A Priority Applicant must not transfer, assign, mortgage or lease an SLD Token, except if the domain name licence on which the SLD Token is based is transferred, in which case the SLD Token must also be transferred to the new licensee of the underlying domain name.

so you need to 'buy-out' your competitors at 3rd, 4th, 5th level just to get the Direct registration at 2nd level. Yep, that's impossible.

under this proposed implementation plan very little names of value will be brought to market. at the same time, registrants will be paying for a Token that will never be of any value at the contestable level. unless all of them drop their domains. Also, how can a commercial entity actually qualify to buyout the .org domain name unless they register a NFP entity for its purpose.

.

 

[DomainNames]

auDA and their crazy push of PRP Plans have not changed.

Lets keep people aware of the facts
1. auDA ran public meetings in Perth, Sydney. Melbourne and Brisbane
2. auDA Paid a 3rd party to professionally record all of these public meetings and anyone who spoke
3. Those who attended where shocked at what the PRP was saying and some chose to speak up at the meetings
4. Many things the auDA PRP members said at the meetings where False and Misleading
5. auDA was contacted by the Office Of Information Commissioner and requested to permit access to the recordings by those who sought it. auDA received the request, reviewed it and has to date not even replied back to the OAIC.
6. People who sought to be on the PRP where refused and the auDA PRP has been stacked seemingly with "yes men"

 

[DomainNames]

auDA and the PRP has completely ignored feedback from stakeholders who attended the PRP meetings.

• https://namebid.com.au/articles/15/auda_prp_direct_au_registration/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/22/the-end-of-auda/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/18/auda-existing-registrants-priority/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/19/auda-policy-review-panel-2018-doomed/

 

[DomainNames]

An auDA PRP ( Policy Review Panelist ) resigned and here is why.

The auDA PRP has not changed course nor has it in fact taken on board any feedback or input which differs from their own biased views some of them stand to potentially profit from.

https://www.theluckycountry.com.au/...gnation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel.pdf

"John Swinson

Chair, 2017 Policy Review Panel

7 April 2018

Notice of resignation from the 2017 Policy Review Panel

Dear Mr Swinson,

I no longer have confidence that the Panel can proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the Australian internet community.

Therefore, I formally advise you of my resignation from the Panel.

The Panel does not adequately represent the interests of the Australian internet community. The size and composition of the Panel is entirely inappropriate for a policy review of this scale and significance. The lack of business representation on the Panel is unacceptable. The underrepresentation on the Panel has also been further exacerbated by the recent departure of Paul Zawa.

I am greatly concerned that the Panel lacks objectivity, and that stakeholder feedback is being overwhelmingly overlooked in favour of personal views held by some Panel members.

As reflected in the 16 March 2018 Panel meeting minutes, I tabled a series of concerns that numerous people had raised with me, about Panel member interactions with stakeholders and the consultation process to date. In my opinion, many of these concerns have validity.

Many of the policy reforms being pushed for by the Panel are in direct opposition to the majority views expressed by stakeholders; and should these reforms be implemented, then a large number of stakeholders’ concerns will ultimately be realised.

I cannot in good conscience be a participant in a policy reform process that lacks proper representation and objectivity; and that is highly likely to result in negative impacts on a large number of stakeholders in the Australian community.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the 2017 Policy Review Panel; and for the professional manner in which you have Chaired the Panel.

Regards,
Luke Summers"​

 

[Scott.L]

.

 

[snoopy]

A bit of .net.au discussion as well going on the auda portal.

In my view .net.au should be sunsetted but I do believe that the panel has destabilised things by asking for feedback on how long they should be able to renew for. That is tantamount to asking whether all those registrants should lose their domains or not. We are talking small businesses and sites like Whirlpool, the ABC etc. Whilst .net.au now looks safe it is a dangerous thing to ask in terms of public perceptions of the namespace.

In my view .au is not very safe at the moment with proposals to potentially take people's names by retrospective changes to policy.

 

[Scott.L]

what is stopping auDA from changing the dates of eligibility, which is likely to occur due to the direct rego deferral 2019. the .net.au will automatically become a 'gamed conflict' by someone who seeks to block them from obtaining the .au and this can be done as seen by the change of eligibility dates [prior to July 2016] which is moved to the a new eligibility date, and then possibly moved to another eligibility date. After all this posturing to game the system via net.au registration the PRP or the Board could simply abandon the token system and as a natural consequence of that decision down goes the net.au regisration numbers.

 

[DomainNames]

what is stopping auDA from changing the dates of eligibility, which is likely to occur due to the direct rego deferral 2019. the .net.au will automatically become a 'gamed conflict' by someone who seeks to block them from obtaining the .au and this can be done as seen by the change of eligibility dates [prior to July 2016] which is moved to the a new eligibility date, and then possibly moved to another eligibility date. After all this posturing to game the system via net.au registration the PRP or the Board could simply abandon the token system and as a natural consequence of that decision down goes the net.au regisration numbers.

The whole plan has been rigged. Anyone who goes back years reading information and who attended the PRP meetings can clearly see it.

auDA and some parties want this extra $$$. They will not listen to anyone and the fact is they don't care at all if existing .au registrants have to fight each other.. In fact some at auDA and on the auDA PRP may benefit from that.

They want to keep it quiet. Provide the appearance of consultation and "push for it" causing massive damage to the very strong existing .au namespace ecosystem.

• .uk failed - Gaver them awaye FREE plus automatically registered them to people without permission to increase uptake and registration numbers
• .nz failed - DNC Report says people dropped their shorter .nz and went back to their other .nz names such as .co.nz completely.

No B.S. Spin can go against the facts. This is a 'CASH GRAB".