What's new

auDA still planning to push through Direct Registration

snoopy

Top Contributor
Nothing has changed people, it is full steam ahead whilst current management is in place,

the revised timeframe for the Panel to provide draft policies to the board will be 17 December 2018. Direct registration implementation policy is to be provided to the Board at the same time.

the auDA board will not decide on the implementation of Direct Registration until the second half of 2019. Cameron Boardman advised Panel members that the Panel should continue to work and report on the implementation of direct registration policy as planned.

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Poli...licy-review-panel-meeting-minutes01052018.pdf
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor

Scott7

Top Contributor
"The Panel agreed that the domain monetisation rules should be repealed."

Interesting.
Indeed. It appears that domain investors are being 'squeezed' from the .au space, and that the days of being able to 'fetch' a pretty penny for a domain are numbered. o_O
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
The best thing people can do is stop investing in this space.

The people in charge are doing a huge amount of damage and that is set to continue. The Policy Review Panel should have been scrapped given the way it has been allowed to run with vested interests and a lack of genuine representation. In my view the government will eventually step in, the "nuclear" option.
 

Drop.com.au

Top Contributor
Indeed. It appears that domain investors are being 'squeezed' from the .au space, and that the days of being able to 'fetch' a pretty penny for a domain are numbered. o_O
Ten years ago I got told that the days where numbered so I should try to cash out quickly. Here I am a decade later waiting for the tomorrow which never comes.

If anyone thinks that removing monetization is going to stop the aftermarket then they have not looked far enough back in the history books. The aftermarket thrives because there is a demand, policy is just a set of rules we adhere to while meeting the demand.

I started selling domains before the monetization rule existed. Domains can be bought and sold under the other policies too.

Even in the days of "exact match only" domains there was still an aftermarket. Each domain had a matching company trading name.

Before that selling a .au domain was not allowed at all, yet there was still an aftermarket. Companies where listed for sale and the domain was simply listed as an asset attached to the company.

When challenged by changes in policy the aftermarket has historically adapted to the changes but it has never gone away.

- Anthony
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Ten years ago I got told that the days where numbered so I should try to cash out quickly. Here I am a decade later waiting for the tomorrow which never comes.

If anyone thinks that removing monetization is going to stop the aftermarket then they have not looked far enough back in the history books. The aftermarket thrives because there is a demand, policy is just a set of rules we adhere to while meeting the demand.

I started selling domains before the monetization rule existed. Domains can be bought and sold under the other policies too.

Even in the days of "exact match only" domains there was still an aftermarket. Each domain had a matching company trading name.

Before that selling a .au domain was not allowed at all, yet there was still an aftermarket. Companies where listed for sale and the domain was simply listed as an asset attached to the company.

When challenged by changes in policy the aftermarket has historically adapted to the changes but it has never gone away.

- Anthony

This change will have a major effect on the aftermarket. Prices will drop further and the things will appear even more out of control with the policy backflip. There will be all sorts of uncertainty with grandfathering and if people need to register business names etc again that is an added cost in terms of time and money.

I don't think people should not be putting money into this space right now, the people running the show are doing immense damage and it is set to continue.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
I'd like the panel to explain why the monetisation rule should be rescinded.

Is this just Brett's crusade?

I note more submissions were in favour of retaining it than not.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
I'd like the panel to explain why the monetisation rule should be rescinded.

Is this just Brett's crusade?

I note more submissions were in favour of retaining it than not.

It is a Brett and Narelle Clark,

Unfortunately the panel is interested in pushing its own agendas and the loudest voice is Brett Fenton. You can the situation here where they will ignore what the majority of submissions and simply decide based on their own views.

Screen Shot 2018-05-23 at 1.00.57 pm.png

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/au-D...view-panel-meeting-16.3.-Final-minutes-v3.pdf

The only real hope is that the board will reject their proposals because what they finally come up with is likely to be crazy stuff with very little popularity, both in terms of monetisation and direct registration.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Also this working group (below) is a absurd because both Brett and Narelle are already known to be strongly against monetisation. What else would the group possibly decide other than scrapping the policy?

Screen Shot 2018-05-23 at 1.11.21 pm.png
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Yep because generic keyword domains being monetised is such a threat to brands or companies wanting to register their domains.
 

Scott7

Top Contributor
I'd like the panel to explain why the monetisation rule should be rescinded.

Is this just Brett's crusade?
The way that it's worded, "The Panel agreed that the domain monetisation rules should be repealed," makes it sound like the unanimous view of panel members.
 

PaulS

Regular Member
So there have been two issues covered in this thread: the model or system for direct registrations proceeding and the axing of monetisation of .au names.

The whole problem I have with the current scenario is that both (significant) policy initiatives are coming from a fundamentally flawed process. I've never invested in domain names so I have no strongly held views one way or the other. But I am a stickler for due process and strongly believe that bad processes result in bad outcomes. Brett and Narelle have long been on-the-record regarding their views. And both are entitled to hold those views. But the fact that their positions can have such a strong influence in a small and unrepresentative Panel really irks me.

Its also disturbing that auDA will delay the implementation of direct registrations until late 2019, but is willing, in the meantime, to allow the policy process to proceed 9/10ths of the way. The process is the problem! Have they not been listening to the complaints of members and the community?

And on monetisation - it is interesting that the Panel's views should be reported in the same 24 hours as auDA's international liaison, Liz Williams, shared this view with an ICANN Working Group:

And finally, I don’t understand the problem with domain investors. Those domain name owners are legitimate purchasers of domain names at the second level. Many registry operators are propped up by those investors and the secondary domain name market is active and mature which is another indicator of competition and consumer choice. I think we can all agree that mis-using a domain name, whoever owns it, isn’t a desirable market outcome but there are measures in place to deal with that.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
But the fact that their positions can have such a strong influence in a small and unrepresentative Panel really irks me.

That is what it is all about. They are entitled to their views but not simply pushing through changes that most submissions didn't agree with. The panel probably should have 15 people on it to water down this type of thing where a small group try to call the shots.

Its also disturbing that auDA will delay the implementation of direct registrations until late 2019, but is willing, in the meantime, to allow the policy process to proceed 9/10ths of the way. The process is the problem! Have they not been listening to the complaints of members and the community?

I agree, the claimed delay is pretty meaningless, they hope to soon push through direct registratio. I think they were simply hoping to rally more support for the SGM by claiming to be putting it off.
 

geodomains

Top Contributor
I for one submitted the monitization of au domains should stay, my $4500 per year in my super fund is why. Not a huge amount of income, but it's a no brainer for me.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Pretty good summary of the auDA PRP here:
auDA's Policy Review Panel was always doomed
https://namebid.com.au/articles/22/the-end-of-auda/
The end of auDA
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
This is a good example why the SGM has support from both Demand, Supply and even Government!

Anyone who hears the auDA PRP meeting audio will be shocked. This is obviously why auDA and the auDA PRP do not want to release it...

The https://www.oaic.gov.au has written to auDA requesting under various legislation they release the auDA PRP audio to certain people and it appears auDA is refusing their requests also.

What is auDA and the auDA PRP hiding from the public meetings they recorded?

The government said they want better accountability and transparency from auDA & board. This has not improved at all since the 2017 SGM.


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

upload_2018-5-23_20-2-7.jpeg
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
This is a good example why the SGM has support from both Demand, Supply and even Government!

Anyone who hears the auDA PRP meeting audio will be shocked. This is obviously why auDA and the auDA PRP do not want to release it...

The https://www.oaic.gov.au has written to auDA requesting under various legislation they release the auDA PRP audio to certain people and it appears auDA is refusing their requests also.

What is auDA and the auDA PRP hiding from the public meetings they recorded?

The government said they want better accountability and transparency from auDA & board. This has not improved at all since the 2017 SGM.


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

View attachment 853

Narelle Clarke is no longer with Accan.org.au so I assume she will no longer represent Accan on the auDA PRP Policy Review Panel. www.Accan.org.au
 

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
10,979
Messages
91,777
Members
2,061
Latest member
domino111

Industry and community links

Top