bitcoin.com.au

[petermeadit]

Congratulations to the new owner. Clearly this name is worth every cent.
Shame about the PD.
Will be watching with interest to see what is done with this name.

 

[findtim]

i put together a song list for this thread
the thread started with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzmggUAqePY
then went to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKPYe53h78
changed to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njSQVLDl3-s
soon went to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3He_gyNG6A
pitched as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK63eUyk-iM
and is presently at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY5pmzmiDO8

tim

 

[neddy]

Congratulations to the new owner. Clearly this name is worth every cent.
Shame about the PD.
Will be watching with interest to see what is done with this name.

Agree on all counts. Domenic Carosa is a really smart guy (and a nice bloke too), and this is a perfect acquisition for him.

Reference has been made on TheDomains.com re this sale (with a nice link to DNT):

"Bitcoin.com.au sells for $31,200 as owner loses the domain due to bad registrant info"

This article links to a bigger post on QNTRA.net: http://qntra.net/2014/11/digital-btc-lose-bitcoin-com-au-by-mistake/ Definitely worth a read - though it isn't strictly accurate in relation to the complaints process and auDA.

But to me, this is the disturbing comment:

As auDA do not actively check the veracity of registrant information, a popular tactic Australian domainers employ in order to secure premium domains is to look for ones which contain outdated or expired registrant details before lodging a complaint with auDA. auDA then cancel/policy delete the domain, allowing the domainer to bid on it via a drop catcher such as Netfleet or Drop.com.au, often at a reduced price than what the original owner may have been asking.

Just for clarification, I am in no way suggesting that Dom would have complained - knowing him as I do, he is not that sort of person. He is always on the hunt for good acquisitions, and is not frightened of paying fair value. But obviously someone did.

 

[snoopy]

I don't think we should conclude this kind of thing is all domainers, the drop catchers have the biggest incentive to lodge complaints.

The difference is we've had a board member come out and say they have lodged this type of complaint, so we know for a fact some domainers are doing this, whereas a drop catcher is never going to admit this, and if it was happening it is not like they are going to putting their name to the complaint lodged.

It all comes back to the same issue of AUDA policy being easily gamed.

 

[neddy]

I don't think we should conclude this kind of thing is all domainers, the drop catchers have the biggest incentive to lodge complaints.

The difference is we've had a board member come out and say they have lodged this type of complaint, so we know for a fact some domainers are doing this, whereas a drop catcher is never going to admit this, and if it was happening it is not like they are going to putting their name to the complaint lodged.

That's drawing a rather long bow - the two existing drop catchers are first and foremost registrars. As such, they have laid down policy obligations to follow in order to protect the rights of registrants.

Drop / Fabulous have a good reputation - and besides they don't win many drops these days.

Netfleet have had a few minor issues in the past, but I can't imagine them doing anything that would put at risk their registrar licences (particularly given MelbourneIT involvement).

Imho.

 

[DomainShield]

Just a quick point of clarification.

Firstly I am not actually aware of the true reason the domain was deleted nor how the complaint was made but I would like to clarify the following.

auDA does not have to be directly involved if this domain was put into a pending delete state because of a cancelled ABN or ACN.

A cancelled ABN/ACN complaint is supposed to be directed to the Registrar NOT directly to auDA. Read [3.1] of http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/

The Registrar then handles this and often auDA is not involved nor aware of the handling of the deletion. The policy goes on to explain to Registrars how to do this, ie Make reasonable endeavor to contact the registrant via Email, Phone or Fax. Then give the registrant 30 days to rectify the situation. Then only to delete the domain.

This means that it is important to choose your Registrar carefully as we determine what we consider to be a "reasonable endeavor" to contact a Registrant.

I am aware that auDA does sometimes handle ABN/ACN complaints and they do occasionally instruct Registrars to delete domain names so this could have happened either way.

 

[neddy]

auDA does not have to be directly involved if this domain was put into a pending delete state because of a cancelled ABN or ACN.

A cancelled ABN/ACN complaint is supposed to be directed to the Registrar NOT directly to auDA. Read [3.1] of http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/

The Registrar then handles this and often auDA is not involved nor aware of the handling of the deletion. The policy goes on to explain to Registrars how to do this, ie Make reasonable endeavor to contact the registrant via Email, Phone or Fax. Then give the registrant 30 days to rectify the situation. Then only to delete the domain.

This means that it is important to choose your Registrar carefully as we determine what we consider to be a "reasonable endeavor" to contact a Registrant.

I am aware that auDA does sometimes handle ABN/ACN complaints and they do occasionally instruct Registrars to delete domain names so this could have happened either way.

Good post Anthony. That's why I said (in relation to TheDomains / QNTRA articles):

though it isn't strictly accurate in relation to the complaints process and auDA.

My understanding is that generally you should be given an opportunity to update details - the only exceptions being where you are a non-existent registrant (Clause 5).

5.4 It is not possible for a non-existent registrant to update domain name eligibility details, or transfer the domain name licence to a third party. Therefore the domain name must be deleted even if it is currently being used by another entity or individual (for example, by a former director of the deregistered company).

So as you rightly say Anthony, it's good to have a friendly registrar who will endeavour to look after your interests should the need arise.

 

[DomainShield]

My understanding is that generally you should be given an opportunity to update details - the only exceptions being where you are a non-existent registrant (Clause 5).

I believe that non-existant registrants are to be given 30 days notice. During this period there are still two options open to Registrants which can be used by the Registrant to keep their domain name and avoid deletion.

Experienced .au Registrars will talk to Registrants during this period and will make them aware of the two options BUT they are not obligated to do this and some Registrars or Resellers would not even be aware of the two options still open to the Registrant.

A further note...
After the 30 day period for non-existant registrants the domain is supposed to be put into a client requested delete state which lasts only 3 days. This domain passed through a 14 day client requested policy delete, so either the Registrar made a mistake or we have the wrong reason for why it was deleted. This is the danger with us making any assumptions.

Anthony

 

[neddy]

During this period there are still two options open to Registrants which can be used by the Registrant to keep their domain name and avoid deletion.

Experienced .au Registrars will talk to Registrants during this period and will make them aware of the two options BUT they are not obligated to do this and some Registrars or Resellers would not even be aware of the two options still open to the Registrant.

What are the two options Anthony?

 

[DomainShield]

What are the two options Anthony?

There is only one option (my mistake) and it has two requirements.

a) there is documentary evidence that, prior to its demise, the registrant agreed to transfer the domain name licence to the entity or individual currently using the domain name; and

b) the transfer meets the requirements outlined in auDA's Transfers (Change of Registrant) Policy (2008-08).

 

[snoopy]

That's drawing a rather long bow - the two existing drop catchers are first and foremost registrars. As such, they have laid down policy obligations to follow in order to protect the rights of registrants.

What policy would a drop catcher be breaching by having someone make a complaint about bad whois?

 

[neddy]

What policy would a drop catcher be breaching by having someone make a complaint about bad whois?

I suppose they could do that, but if they got caught it would be commercial suicide (see REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION CRITERIA below). And given that most eligibilty or bad WhoIs can be fixed (according to Anthony), why would they even bother?

3. REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION CRITERIA

3.1 auDA accredited registrars must meet the all the criteria listed in this section, at all times during the term of the Registrar Agreement. The criteria are intended to ensure that registrars operate in a way which is consistent with auDA’s responsibility to promote and protect:

a) the stability and integrity of the Australian DNS;

b) the efficient and effective operation of the domain name registration system; and

c) the rights and interests of consumers (registrants).

 

[neddy]

There is only one option (my mistake) and it has two requirements.

a) there is documentary evidence that, prior to its demise, the registrant agreed to transfer the domain name licence to the entity or individual currently using the domain name; and

b) the transfer meets the requirements outlined in auDA's Transfers (Change of Registrant) Policy (2008-08).

Yes I know of these, but I thought you might have had some additional "secret sauce".

 

[DomainShield]

There are lots of instances of "dogs breakfast" registrant information which get cleaned up after a complaint is made. This type of update and the Registrars who are diligent in doing this do not often get appreciated for it as no-one is aware of their work (Not talking about me here, we hardly deal with any complaints).

The view put forward by the media that this is a "popular tactic Australian domainers employ" is probably an exaggeration since this tactic of getting domains deleted is not very easy to achieve with experienced .au registrars.

 

[DomainShield]

Yes I know of these, but I thought you might have had some additional "secret sauce".

No secret ingredient here... actually on second though I would like to share the following which people tend to overlook during auDA bashing sessions and that is

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/ 2004-01 - Complaints (Registrant Eligibility) Policy

Section [2.3]
"auDA recognises that many registrants invest significant time and resources in using their domain name to maintain an Internet presence. Even if registrants do not have an active web site, they may use their domain name for email purposes. Therefore, it is auDA policy that a registrant must be given a reasonable opportunity to update their eligibility details, if it is possible to do so, before the licence will be cancelled."


So once you have A) Made sure your contact details are correct at the registry or B) Make sure your Registrar will contact you via the telephone if an issue arises. Then you need to talk to auDA and ask them how to read/interpret the rules based around your unique situation since you are entitled to having a reasonable opportunity to update your eligibility details.

 

[findtim]

i don't want to get off track just give you some information which may be relevant.

since the change of business registrations moving to asic from state departments MANY business names have gone out of date because asic didn't send invoices out on time.

i rang them some time ago and was told " oh don't worry, we are having problems and we will send them out when we can "

because of this thread it reminded me of this and i just rang asic and my different business names are ALL out of date but still showing registered, the girl explained that asic won't be deleting business names as they " had sooooooo manyyyy invoices returned to sender and are still trying to work it out"

anyway, all you have to do is go onto asic and check the expiry date of your business name NOT THE "registered" field as its lying to you !

then just pay online.

i didn't want to take the thread of track but felt it would be a concern if an expired business name became the fault of a PD.

there will come a time i think when asic will clean out its database and that could cause problems for many businesses.

tim

 

[petermeadit]

Just a quick point of clarification.

Firstly I am not actually aware of the true reason the domain was deleted nor how the complaint was made but I would like to clarify the following.

auDA does not have to be directly involved if this domain was put into a pending delete state because of a cancelled ABN or ACN.

A cancelled ABN/ACN complaint is supposed to be directed to the Registrar NOT directly to auDA. Read [3.1] of http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/

The Registrar then handles this and often auDA is not involved nor aware of the handling of the deletion. The policy goes on to explain to Registrars how to do this, ie Make reasonable endeavor to contact the registrant via Email, Phone or Fax. Then give the registrant 30 days to rectify the situation. Then only to delete the domain.

This means that it is important to choose your Registrar carefully as we determine what we consider to be a "reasonable endeavor" to contact a Registrant.

I am aware that auDA does sometimes handle ABN/ACN complaints and they do occasionally instruct Registrars to delete domain names so this could have happened either way.

Thanks DomainShield for the clarification on those points. While the policies and procedures do seem to be fairly comprehensive, there inevitably seems to be some conjecture as to implications of actions based on circumstances in this case it would seem.

In any case it looks like a premium domain has changed hands as a result of a PD.

 

[Erwin]

This issue is a real interesting one, I hope we get to hear the full story..

 

[snoopy]

While the policies and procedures do seem to be fairly comprehensive

I think this is the result of over policing by AUDA where they think it is appropriate for someone to lose a valuable asset because details are inaccurate or out of date. Too many procedures and policies.

I can't think of another area where an asset would just be given away because of that. The combination of relying on complaints from the public + "giving away" the asset is a bad one because it is inviting this kind of problem.

What exactly is so reprehensible about an out of date ABN that someone should be stripped of their domain?

 

[petermeadit]

I think this is the result of over policing by AUDA where they think it is appropriate for someone to lose a valuable asset because details are inaccurate or out of date. Too many procedures and policies.

I can't think of another area where an asset would just be given away because of that. The combination of relying on complaints from the public + "giving away" the asset is a bad one because it is inviting this kind of problem.

What exactly is so reprehensible about an out of date ABN that someone should be stripped of their domain?

Ever seen a .com suspended or locked for failing to supply updated details as per ICANN requirements? I have seen this happen in enom.