auDA - Supreme Court win

[neddy]

Some members may be aware that recently a person / entity took on auDA with regards to the use of .org.au names.

In essence, org.au and asn.au names (amongst others in the Australian space) are not to be used for commercial purposes.

The domain monetisation policy does not cover these extensions. You need to rely on having a true "close and substantial connection".

Here are just a few of the names that were registered:

• bridgingfinance.org.au
  
• carloans.org.au
  
• creditcards.org.au
  
• personalloans.org.au

In summary, auDA were going to policy delete these names. The registrant then applied on an ex parte basis to the Court for an injunction to stop auDA
doing this. This injunction was granted, and a further hearing was then held.

The Supreme Court of NSW subsequently ruled in auDA's favour (that they had every right to delete the names).

Whilst the judgement is reasonably lengthy (especially for domainers!), there are some interesting points raised. Well worth a read imho.

Here is a link to the case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/558.html

The guiding principle here is that domain owners / domainers have to operate within auDA's existing rules and policies (whether you agree with them or not).
If you don't, auDA will use its substantial resources to enforce them.

What do others think?
.

 

[findtim]

i think fair enough, a .org.au should be for "not for profits" etc and not "commercial", this way there is a higher "trust" level for the .org.au website.

i registered a .org.au a few years back and there were no questions asked ( it is a not for profit) but recently i was asked to register for a client who is in a car club. I was stopped and had to supply proof of the organisation.

i think keep. org.au for what i think it was orginally intended for

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Another Byron shire resident I believe

I've been waiting quite a few years for auDA to delete them.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I have started reading it - there appears to be an unrepresented plaintiff so it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel for an experienced barrister.

It is interesting to see that the registrant review process wasn't used. I have had concerns about this process from the start, auDA did not engage with the industry or public before creating it, auDA has literally done nothing to promote it to domain name registrants, the fees have been ridiculously high (although I believe that was/is being reviewed) and the panel is chaired by someone who is on the record as being opposed to domaining and domainers (the very people likely to use this process)!

The last time I checked with auDA not 1 single person had used the Registrant Review Process.

 

[Designer]

@CMDL - what is registrant review process? How does it work?