Candidate Questions

[neddy]

Ok, as discussed, thought I'd start a new thread for the candidate "question and answers".

• Thank you to everyone who submitted questions - I have just posted five to start with. We don't want to overwhelm anyone.
  
  
• This first tranche relate to day to day issues that affect domain owners. Other issues will be raised in the next few days.
  
  
• To our prospective candidates, I thank you in advance on behalf of the members of DNT for taking the time to let us know where you stand on issues.
  It really is appreciated.

--------------------------------------------

If you are elected or re-elected as a Demand Class director, what would be your position on the following? Please try and condense to short, simple answers.

This first tranche of question relates to day to day issues that affect domain owners.

1. Do you support restrictions on domain monetisation? If yes, why? If no, will you work from within to have it abolished?
   
   
2. Should all Australian’s be allowed to register an .au domain name without the need for an ABN? i.e. Free market principles. If no, in simple terms, why not?
   If yes, will you work from within to have it abolished? (Bearing in mind that .co.uk and .co.nz have no restrictions and their system works well).
   
   
3. Domain audits and complaints process. Please read this thread: http://www.dntrade.com.au/power-auda-t1524.html?t=1524&highlight=Glady . Do you think auDA’s determination
   on this was fair? If yes, in simple terms, why? If no, will you work from within to have a better, fairer and inexpensive appeals process for domain name registrants?
   
   
4. Over regulation: Please read this thread as an example: http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections-t3630.html?p=25265#post25265 . Should domain owners be allowed to
   develop their domains without restrictions or oversight by auDA? If no, in simple terms, why not? If yes, will you work from within to have it abolished?
   (Bearing in mind that .co.uk and .co.nz have no restrictions and their system works well).
   
   
5. What is your stance on allowing free Change of Registrant Transfers i.e. existing registrant period used for the new owner. (Same as .com and .co.nz rules).
   In simple terms, are you “for” or “against”?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

hi guys

in response to your questions:

1. I am one of the most vocal opponents of restrictions on monetisation and proud of it. I was happy to have co-authored the minority report in the 2010 Names Policy Panel (see attachment B of the Report, which set out in detail why the Monetisation Policy and its restrictions were harsh, unreasonable and without proper basis. I have been working hard to get rid of these restrictions!
2. I am a big supporter of free market principles, and am opposed to unreasonable restrictions.
3. Domain audits can be harsh and unreasonable - again I have been a vocal advocate for a functional appeals process for domain name registrants for many years, which is affordable. I have seen litigation over domain name issues which could have easily been resolved through a functional and affordable appeals process.
4. Over regulation in .au is a problem, unfair and harsh regulation needs to be removed. The basis of much of this harsh and unfair regulation has no sound basis or reasoning to it. All auDA members on this forum should become involved in Policy Panels and become involved in the debate. Again as everyone here knows I have been a vocal opponent of over regulation.
5. I support allowing existing registrant period to be used for the new owner - this is already the case with other TLDs and ccTLDS e.g. .com, this will become more of an issue if auDA decide to increase licence terms from 2 to 5 years.

The key thing to remember in this campaign is which candidates have campaigned for positive changes, not what lip service they have given or give now at the 11th hour before an election. I have been on record for many years opposing unfair and harsh policies.

I ask for your support.

 

[iejs]

Bump!

Anyone else?

 

[L-Jarrett]

Thanks Ned,

In response to your questions:

1. I support domain monetisation and supported the Names Policy Panel's recommendation to revoke the Domain Monetisation Policy on the basis that the current restrictions do not work in practice. At the moment, domainers would remain subject to the close and substantial connection rule, which may be broadly or narrowly applied. I agree that domain monetisation should not be overly or onerously regulated, however there are legitimate policy reasons for ensuring that bad faith registrations are minimised – policy reasons that need to be addressed without making domainers feel like they're all considered to be bad faith registrants!! It's a delicate balance which I would work to achieve if elected to the Board.

2. I do not think that people should be required to have an ABN simply to register a domain name. There are a lot of circumstances in which people would otherwise be eligible to register a domain name and no other reason for registering an ABN.

3. I agree that there should be a functional appeals process. In addition, some of the issues raised in relation to domain audits would probably be helped by further clarity about domain monetisation as noted above. That is – if there were clearer guidance about domain monetisation providing legitimate eligibility for .au domains then the audit issue would be clearer also.

4. "Should domain owners be allowed to develop their domains without restrictions or oversight by auDA?" That's a very interesting question. In my view, it's not practical for auDA to have detailed oversight of the content of websites developed in the .au domain, so over-regulation is as much an issue for auDA as it is for domain owners. However, I think that domain owners should be required to ensure compliance with the relevant eligibility criteria to continue to hold their domains – again, there are good reasons for making sure that people are eligible and not registering in bad faith. However, regulation at the level of particular links in a website does not seem reasonable.

5. I am for allowing the transferee to benefit from the existing registrant period. This seems a practical approach from the perspective of the parties and auDA.

I hope that this will assist you in making your decision about who to vote for in the election. I am a new voice on this forum, but I have a lot to offer to the process of policy review and reform.

I have strong views on the issues facing the .au domain industry but I am not one-sided in my approach. If elected I will work hard to contribute to and improve processes and will ensure that I listen to the views expressed by members in these and other forums.

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the forum.

Lisa

 

[Simon Johnson]

Many of you know me personally and have read my blog posts or heard me speak on these matters over the years, so these responses shouldn't come as a surprise:

1. auDA Policy restrictions in relation to what it calls "monetisation" are antiquated, flawed and should be eliminated. I dont know of anyone in this industry who has worked as hard as I have (over many years), to abolish this discriminatory policy.

As many of you are aware, I co-authored the Minority Report in the 2010 Names Policy Panel which calls on auDA to abolish these restrictions. Let me be crystal clear - the *only* people that supported this document were David Lye and Erhan - nobody else. That's just a fact.

2. Yes, I believe in a free market. I have been very vocal on this issue over many years. You can read my 2009 submission where I caution auDA that "excessive regulation in this industry will interfere with the operation of a free market."

3. I believe that auDA should publish a) how these "audits" are conducted and b) the results of such audits. However I'd question whether auDA is operating beyond its mandate by conducting such audits in the first place.

4. As long as registrants are not breaking the law (eg: trademark/bad faith registrations), people should be able to register whatever they like. There are existing laws which cover these situations. As such auDA policy in this area is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

5. I believe the COR is "revenue raising" and should be abolished. I've been very clear on this issue. You can read my 2010 Public Submission here.

One final statement. Speaking generally, it's easy for someone to post on a forum that they support these values, yet when it comes to "going on the record" they are silent. I understand that some people are members of various associations and industry groups, perhaps they also have consulting contracts to consider this should also be disclosed, so people can make an educated decision on who to vote for.

 

[neddy]

4. As long as registrants are not breaking the law (eg: trademark/bad faith registrations), people should be able to register whatever they like. There are existing laws which cover these situations. As such auDA policy in this area is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Thanks Simon - can you please clarify your answer on number 4? This question is to do with how we develop our names - and should there be the level of involvement that auDA chose to exercise in Geodomains case (restrictions and/or oversight).

 

[Simon Johnson]

Thanks Simon - can you please clarify your answer on number 4? This question is to do with how we develop our names - and should there be the level of involvement that auDA chose to exercise in Geodomains case (restrictions and/or oversight).

Thanks for the question. I've previously stated my position on auDA Policy re: content regulation.

"I’m very concerned that auDA Policy seeks to and/or has the effect of imposing content regulations on domain name registrants. This is undesirable and outside the scope of auDA’s mandate."​

This is also consistent with the feedback I've provided in the 2010/11 Names Policy Panel - Minority Report.

In the case of the user Geodomains, asking someone to take down links is (quite frankly) ridiculous.

 

[joshrowe]

Do you support restrictions on domain monetisation? If yes, why? If no, will you work from within to have it abolished?

Domain monetisation is a legitimate business model. In principle, I believe that domain name policy needs to be as objective as possible so that businesses (registrants) are clear on how to register domain names.

The challenge with simply "abolishing" the domain monetisation policy components is that it may weaken the original intent of the "close and substantial" rule, effectively allowing open free-for-all registration of .au domain names.

I believe that the .au domain name space has a level of integrity and value because it's policy is difference (and not free-for-all) like other generic and country code domain name spaces. In my previous posts to this forum, I note that there are some who also have a similar view.

As far as changing the policy goes, this is NOT actually something the auDA board does. Policy is changed through advisory panels which are formed by those in the industry. The board's role is to select the advisory panel members, set the terms of reference for the panel, have the panel seek public input, review the panel's (consensus) recommendations and respond to those recommendations.

It would be extraordinary for the auDA board to argue to accept a minority report (such as the recent one) when the report had NOT been seen by the public NOR had consensus agreement from the industry representative panel.

The board made the following comments regarding the minority report:

The Board noted the minority report regarding domain monetisation (at Attachment B of the Panel’s report). The Board did not agree with the alternative recommendations put forward by the authors of the minority report. In particular, the Board considered that removing clause 4.3(a) of the Policy would undermine the operation of the close and substantial connection rule, which is an integral part of the .au policy framework. In addition, the Board read the minority report as implying that the Panel was not suitably qualified to consider the issues. The Board was satisfied that the Panel was suitably qualified, and had followed proper process (including 2 rounds of public consultation), to make recommendations to the Board on domain monetisation. Accordingly, the Board did not consider it necessary to convene a different group to deal with the issue.

My advice and encouragement to Erhan et al regarding seeking changes regarding the monetisation policy is to continue engaging through the policy panels AND ensure there is also industry support (panel members & public) for those changes.

Should all Australian’s be allowed to register an .au domain name without the need for an ABN? i.e. Free market principles. If no, in simple terms, why not?
If yes, will you work from within to have it abolished? (Bearing in mind that .co.uk and .co.nz have no restrictions and their system works well).

For .com.au & .net.au I believe there should continue to be a requirement to provide evidence of a commercial operation (such as ABN, ACN, RBN, TM, etc). Balancing the effort of registering an ABN (for example) with the ability to have domain names registered to "traceable" entities is what gives .au a level of integrity that other spaces do not possesses. This is part of the value of the .au "brand" and we shouldn't do away with it.

Domain audits and complaints process. Please read this thread: http://www.dntrade.com.au/power-auda-t1524.html?t=1524&highlight=Glady . Do you think auDA’s determination
on this was fair? If yes, in simple terms, why? If no, will you work from within to have a better, fairer and inexpensive appeals process for domain name registrants?

I don't know all the details of this case (for example auDA's "view" of the case). However, even if I did it would be inappropriate for me to make comments given I am currently an auDA director.

However, my general position on how to approach these type situations is to first raise the issue with auDA staff then escalate if required. There is now a new registrant review tribunal which is available to deal with these kind of issues. If then, there is still an outstanding issue then there is a standing item for every auDA board meeting where "board correspondence" can be heard.

Over regulation: Please read this thread as an example: http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections-t3630.html?p=25265#post25265 . Should domain owners be allowed to
develop their domains without restrictions or oversight by auDA? If no, in simple terms, why not? If yes, will you work from within to have it abolished?
(Bearing in mind that .co.uk and .co.nz have no restrictions and their system works well).

As per above, I do not know both sides of this case and it is not appropriate for me to make comments about specific issues as I am a current auDA director.

However, in general businesses (registrants) should be able to have confidence in objective domain name policy.

As per above, my advice and encouragement to those wanting change is to the monetisation policy is to continue engaging through the policy panels AND ensure there is also industry support (panel members & public) for those changes.

What is your stance on allowing free Change of Registrant Transfers i.e. existing registrant period used for the new owner. (Same as .com and .co.nz rules).
In simple terms, are you “for” or “against”?

The nature of a competitive registrar market is it allows different service and price models to be provided in the market. My understanding of the COR is that there is "effort" for the registrar to make the change. If the service was mandated to be "free" - who would then pay for this effort? The system breaks if I can register all my domain names with the lowest cost registrar and transfer for free to the highest service registrar for two years without paying a cent to them for that high service. There may be other ways to solve the registrar "effort" issue by forcing an extra year of registration to be paid for every COR - isn't that what happens for .com ?

Finally, apologies for taking so long to respond to these questions. The other night when I said I was going to respond my cable internet was knocked out by the Melbourne storms. It's still out & I've been surviving on my (slower) tethered 3G iPhone connection at home. I hope my fast home internet is back online tonight, it's amazing how much you rely on Internet connectivity for so many basic day-to-day things!

 

[Simon Johnson]

The challenge with simply "abolishing" the domain monetisation policy components is that it may weaken the original intent of the "close and substantial" rule, effectively allowing open free-for-all registration of .au domain names.

The fact is that existing laws (real laws, not auDA Policy) protect registrants against bad faith registrations.

When it comes down to it, auDA policy is just way off the mark and needs substantial reform.

The board's role is to select the advisory panel members, set the terms of reference for the panel, have the panel seek public input, review the panel's (consensus) recommendations and respond to those recommendations........consensus agreement from the industry representative panel.

Josh, I really don't think you want to go down that road of an "industry representative panel". People can look at the members and ask themselves:

How many auDA Board Members were on the Panel?
How many registrars were on the Panel?
How many who people work for / are paid by auDA were on the Panel?
How many real people are left?

If the Panels were made up equal numbers of representatives from the community, I believe there would be very different outcomes. Everyone can see that the "Panel Model" isn't right and it needs to change.

continue engaging through the policy panels AND ensure there is also industry support (panel members & public) for those changes.

There is industry support for these changes, particularly those in the Minority Report. Those changes have almost no chance of seeing the light of day, given the current Panel process. That process (as you say) is controlled by the auDA Board.

 

[Shane]

I do sympathise with Josh's view that there should be some form of regulation over AU domains, as I too believe that the AU space has a better reputation amongst internet users than other 'free-for-all' extensions.

But... I have invested a lot of time and money into my domains, and it's how I make my living. I'm not willing to risk my domains due to auDA policy.

For that reason alone, it's clear to me which two candidates will be getting my votes.

 

[DomainNames]

I do sympathise with Josh's view that there should be some form of regulation over AU domains, as I too believe that the AU space has a better reputation amongst internet users than other 'free-for-all' extensions.

But... I have invested a lot of time and money into my domains, and it's how I make my living. I'm not willing to risk my domains due to auDA policy.

For that reason alone, it's clear to me which two candidates will be getting my votes.

people are kidding themselves if they think AUDA'S red tape over the years has helped the AU space or that its seem to be better than .com ease of registration, sale etc. Some constantly spout this nonsense. Far from it. Only since some red tape being cut in the last few years has the au space started to prosper. Just look at how popular the drop system is and the domain name aftermarket now. Look at how competition between registrars gives people far greater choice and better price choices for registrations, renewals and change of registrant ( cor)

Auda's policies have been the biggest hinderence to the AU space and has hurt and slowed it detrimentally. Only by efforts from many have they accepted change and updated their outdated policies, cut red tape.... more still needs to be fixed and this forum has brought many issues to light worth discussing review and action.

Shane is right.. 2 candidates seem to stand out as the best choice. Rather than defending old bad policy they have acted to help bring in positive reforms that have been much needed...They need support!

 

[Honan]

.....................



The nature of a competitive registrar market is it allows different service and price models to be provided in the market. My understanding of the COR is that there is "effort" for the registrar to make the change. If the service was mandated to be "free" - who would then pay for this effort? The system breaks if I can register all my domain names with the lowest cost registrar and transfer for free to the highest service registrar for two years without paying a cent to them for that high service. There may be other ways to solve the registrar "effort" issue by forcing an extra year of registration to be paid for every COR - isn't that what happens for .com ?

.....

Yes Josh, you can register all your .au domain names with the lowest cost registrar and transfer for free to the highest service registrar for two years without paying a cent to them for that high service
I am bit surprised you did not know that
And no, Josh you are not forced to pay an extra year of registration for .com when changing registrant. COR is free for .com

 

[DomainNames]

Yes Josh, you can register all your .au domain names with the lowest cost registrar and transfer for free to the highest service registrar for two years without paying a cent to them for that high service
I am bit surprised you did not know that
And no, Josh you are not forced to pay an extra year of registration for .com when changing registrant. COR is free for .com

Thats right!! COR is FREE for .com .. Why does AUDA and some old policy makers always think they know better than the rest of the world? They dont and this is proven time and time again

 

[joshrowe]

Thats right!! COR is FREE for .com .. Why does AUDA and some old policy makers always think they know better than the rest of the world? They dont and this is proven time and time again

Apologies, I was thinking of the .com change of registrar policy in my example above, which states that 1 year must be added to a domain name when changing registrar, see: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm (see A - 8).

.com policy is free for all and .au policy is not. .au domain name holders must meet certain policy requirements to qualify for a domain name. This is why there is a cost associated with registrars checking a change of registrant request.

Also, when a change of registrant request is lodged, it also creates a brand new 2 year domain name licence (irrespective of how much time was left on the previous domain name licence).

I note that VentraIP has automated most of their COR process and has one of the cheapest prices on the market for COR: https://forums.ventraip.com.au/showthread.php?t=4990

Also one outcome of the Secondary Market Working Group (which Ned was a member) recommendations will mean that auDA will educate registrants that domain names can be change to another registrar before a COR is initiated, therefore giving registrants the ability to get the right price/service combination for the new registrant of the domain name.

 

[DomainNames]

Apologies, I was thinking of the .com change of registrar policy in my example above, which states that 1 year must be added to a domain name when changing registrar, see: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm (see A - 8).

.com policy is free for all and .au policy is not. .au domain name holders must meet certain policy requirements to qualify for a domain name. This is why there is a cost associated with registrars checking a change of registrant request.

Also, when a change of registrant request is lodged, it also creates a brand new 2 year domain name licence (irrespective of how much time was left on the previous domain name licence).

I note that VentraIP has automated most of their COR process and has one of the cheapest prices on the market for COR: https://forums.ventraip.com.au/showthread.php?t=4990

Also one outcome of the Secondary Market Working Group (which Ned was a member) recommendations will mean that auDA will educate registrants that domain names can be change to another registrar before a COR is initiated, therefore giving registrants the ability to get the right price/service combination for the new registrant of the domain name.

So Josh do you agree the Auda policy needs to be changed to allow registrant change Free using the existing time left on the name? Im guessing Auda likes to make it policy a new registration and 2 year period is needed so they get their registration fee they charge?? There is little reason for it otherwise and it needs to be changed.

if you buy a car the registration period left is included ...

You keep saying .com is a "free for all" whats wrong with that? Strange how Auda and some think they know better than those who manage the .com space. The .com space works fine!

 

[joshrowe]

So Josh do you agree the Auda policy needs to be changed to allow registrant change Free using the existing time left on the name? Im guessing Auda likes to make it policy a new registration and 2 year period is needed so they get their registration fee they charge?? There is little reason for it otherwise and it needs to be changed.

if you buy a car the registration period left is included ...

Do I want lower costs for registrants, YES! Is there clear and documented evidence that I do push for lower costs for registrants, also YES!

This can be achieved in a number of ways, including more industry competition and less "red tape".

I have been pushing for lower prices of domain names and associated services since I was first elected to the auDA Board. For example I set up and widely publicised the "whatsinaname.com.au" web site to highlight to registrants that there was more choice in the market for domain name registrations, see: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/01/1023864705235.html

I was also on the board committee which developed the auDA domain name fee model which lowers the amount paid to auDA as domain name volumes increase.

As for the specific example you raise, with the recent Names Policy Panel's recommendation to allow 1-5 year registrations this could potentially allow the extension of the domain name licence for COR requests rather than a brand new licence. If this came to the board for approval I would support it.

You keep saying .com is a "free for all" whats wrong with that?

As I have answered before in this forum, I believe that the .au domain name space has a level of integrity and value because it's policy is difference (and not free-for-all) like other generic and country code domain name spaces. In my previous posts to this forum, I note that there are some who also have a similar view.

Strange how Auda and some think they know better than those who manage the .com space. The .com space works fine!

I am unclear what you mean when you say it "works well" in .com - can you please elaborate?

Here are the objectives and measures (dot points) which I believe make .au policy "work well":

1. To maintain the Australian identity of the .au domain space.
- High proportion of .au registrants with an association or nexus with Australia.

2. To enhance the usability of the .au domain space:
- Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks the first time they encounter the domain name space
- Efficiency: Once users have learned the domain name space, how quickly can they
perform tasks?
- Memorability: When users return to the domain name space after a period of not using it, how easily can they re-establish proficiency?
- Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?
- Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the domain name space?

3. To preserve the integrity of the .au domain space.
- Low occurrence of disputes.
- Low occurrence of cyber squatting.
- Low occurrence of scams.
- High protection of rights holders.

4. To facilitate economic benefits flowing from the .au domain space
- Demonstrable link between the opening up of .au and an increase in value of the Australian online economy above an increase in the number of .au domain name registrations.

 

[joshrowe]

The fact is that existing laws (real laws, not auDA Policy) protect registrants against bad faith registrations.

Please provide evidence to support your argument including the time and costs involved in using "real laws" compared to the auDA method, time and costs.

When it comes down to it, auDA policy is just way off the mark and needs substantial reform.

Please provide evidence to support your argument.

Josh, I really don't think you want to go down that road of an "industry representative panel".

Are you suggesting that auDA is manipulating the panel membership to get the outcome it wants? If so, that is a very serious accusation which I would hope you have evidence before making public statements which you may have to retract in the future.

I refer you to the board's view on this matter (which I agree with):

The Board was satisfied that the Panel was suitably qualified, and had followed proper process (including 2 rounds of public consultation), to make recommendations to the Board on domain monetisation.

People can look at the members and ask themselves:

Here is the list of Names Policy Panel members, from: http://www.auda.org.au/2010npp/2010npp-members/

There were 22 members including the Chair and government observer.

• Derek Whitehead, Swinburne University (Panel Chair)
• Philip Argy, Australian Computer Society
• Darrell Burkey, Computer Assistance Support & Education (CASE)
• David Goldstein
• John Graham, Council of Small Business of Australia (COSBOA)
• Robert Gregory, Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
• Lisa Jarrett, Kelly & Co Lawyers
• Simon Johnson
• Erhan Karabardak, Cooper Mills Lawyers
• Haig Kayserian, Kayweb Holdings Pty Ltd
• *Amin Kroll, IntaServe Pty Ltd
• Lisa Lennon, Gilbert + Tobin
• Kimberley Lowton, NetRegistry Pty Ltd
• David Lye, NetFleet Pty Ltd
• *Graham McDonald
• Jamie Murphy, Murdoch Business School
• Peter Nettlefold, Department of Broadband, Communcations and the Digital Economy (observer status)
• *George Pongas, AusRegistry Pty Ltd
• Helen Richards, Melbourne IT Ltd
• *Joshua Rowe
• Nancye Stanelis, Education Services Australia
• Miguel Wood, Lion & Griffon

I note that 7 members of the panel are current members of this forum: David Goldstein, Lisa Jarrett, yourself, Erhan Karabardak, David Lye, George Pongas, and myself.

How many auDA Board Members were on the Panel?

4 board members were on the panel: myself (demand class director), George Pongas (supply class director), Graham McDonald (independent director) and Amin Kroll (supply class director).

How many registrars were on the Panel?

4 registrars had representatives on the panel: Amin Kroll (IntaServe Pty Ltd), Kimberley Lowton, (NetRegistry Pty Ltd), Helen Richards (Melbourne IT Ltd) and Nancye Stanelis (Education Services Australia).

Also, there were 2 other "supply" participants on the panel as well: David Lye (NetFleet Pty Ltd part of NetRegistry Group) and George Pongas (AusRegistry Pty Ltd).

How many who people work for / are paid by auDA were on the Panel?

Simon, please be explicit.

Are you inferring that auDA is both constructing and paying panels for a specific opinion? I suggest you consult your lawyer before responding, to save yourself from another retraction and public apology: http://www.simonjohnson.co/news/update/

For what it's worth, board members are paid, the non-voting panel chair is also paid. I understand that Philip Argy and David Goldstein are both paid for providing services to auDA. AusRegistry is paid for services by auDA (George Pongas from AusRegistry was on the panel).

How many real people are left?

Define "real people"?

Rather than casting sweeping general accusations, why not be more specific and provide evidence of your statements?

If the Panels were made up equal numbers of representatives from the community, I believe there would be very different outcomes. Everyone can see that the "Panel Model" isn't right and it needs to change.

Great, a constructive idea from Simon!

What is your suggested panel composition then?

I'm not after specific names, more so the interests that a panel should represent.

Would you care to elaborate and describe your proposed alternative "Panel Model" ?

There is industry support for these changes, particularly those in the Minority Report.

I agree that there can be improvements that can be made to the monetisation policy. However, the method by which you attempting to do it is combative and confrontational. The methods I have seen work best with auDA are constructive and consultative.

Ned's involvement on the Secondary Market Working Group demonstrates that the needs of domainers are heard at auDA and acted on.

Those changes have almost no chance of seeing the light of day, given the current Panel process. That process (as you say) is controlled by the auDA Board.

If you are elected to the board, will you seek for changes to the panel process? If so, please elaborate with your new panel process.

 

[neddy]

What do our Board candidates think about the new "animated videos" as produced by auDA?

Particularly video 1 and 2 - and how the perception being portrayed to "Joe Public" could affect domainers?

http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-videos-t3932.html?p=27100#post27100

 

[David Goldstein]

One of the fallacies about .AU names is that the restrictions on registration create some safeguards.

There are a number of European ccTLDs that allow people not domiciled within the country to register domains. Yet I'm not aware that these have any greater issues than what .AU does.

I see no evidence and I would like someone to show me where .DE, .AT, .CH or one of the other well regulated ccTLDs have problems with this.

To claim that enforcement of .AU policies cannot be done by allowing people outside Australia to register domain names is unsupportable.

I would also like to state that even though I provide a service on behalf of auDA, I was one of the most outspoken members of the Names Policy Panel, speaking against several auDA policies, as I largely did on a previous panel. Simon's assertions are ridiculous.

The only problem I have with panel membership is the over-representation of lawyers who are often more interested in protecting their client's interests and not thinking about the broader interests of domain name policy.

I would also take Simon's claim that Panels should be "made up equal numbers of representatives from the community." I'm interested in how he defines this. There were 3 representatives for the domainer industry on the last panel, which seems quite a good representation. Unfortunately there was no large business interests represented.

 

[DomainNames]

One of the fallacies about .AU names is that the restrictions on registration create some safeguards.


There are a number of European ccTLDs that allow people not domiciled within the country to register domains. Yet I'm not aware that these have any greater issues than what .AU does.

I see no evidence and I would like someone to show me where .DE, .AT, .CH or one of the other well regulated ccTLDs have problems with this.

To claim that enforcement of .AU policies cannot be done by allowing people outside Australia to register domain names is unsupportable."

Agreed!