.com.au domain held by deregistered Australian company

[johnf]

We have lodged a complaint with a Registrar of Record regarding a .com.au domain which is held by a deregistered Australian company.
The Registrar in this case responded as follows:
"We have notified the registrant of their deregistered entity. They have 14 days to update the entity,or the domain will be deleted and available for public registration."
It was our understanding that if a complaint was lodged with the Registrar for a .com.au domain held by a deregistered company the only option was for the domain to be deleted.
This was the case last July when we lodged a complaint with a different Registrar, also regarding a deregistered company, and on that occasion the only option apparently was for the domain to be deleted.
Has the auDA policy in this respect changed over the last 6 months or is this a case of a Registrar having a different approach?

 

[neddy]

@johnf - as a matter of interest, who is the Registrar?

My understanding of policy is that they have given an incorrect response. http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/ - Sections 5.1 through 5.4. However, there are always some exceptions when it comes to auDA policies! Section 5.5 (a)

Having said that, I'm not a fan of registrants losing domains on possible technicalities. I believe they should be given an opportunity to rectify / update eligibility details if at all possible. If they don't or can't, then it's fair enough that they lose the domain.

My reason for saying that is there are certain people who look for these issues; then make a complaint to auDA; and contemporaneously lodge a backorder with Netfleet. I wrote a couple of articles about this on Domainer.

For the record, I am not suggesting or implying that you are doing this.

 

[johnf]

@johnf - as a matter of interest, who is the Registrar?

The Registrar is TPP Wholesale.

My understanding of policy is that they have given an incorrect response. http://www.auda.org.au/policies/2004-01/ - Sections 5.1 through 5.4. However, there are always some exceptions when it comes to auDA policies! Section 5.5 (a)

The circumstances are:

1. Initially there was one large business that was wound up after the GFC and the holding company and its subsidiaries were gradually wound up and deregistered over time. The administrators ultimately sold different but similar parts of the business to different buyers.
2. The entity lodging the domain eligibility complaint purchased and operates one of those businesses.
3. The entity owning the domain in question purchased another part of the original business, which included a number of different products and services and related domains, but to our knowledge no registrant transfer took place at the time in accordance with auDA regulations and the only administrative change made by the new owners was to change the admin contact name and email address. The registrant company with respect to the domain in question was deregistered in 2013.
4. Ultimately, because all of the businesses are associated with a single destination, the marketing presence and quality of online services, to a greater or lesser extent, is affected by the online performance of all of the individual entities.
5. The website, which is hosted on the domain in question, doesn't reflect well on the destination. It hasn't been updated in many years. The content is factually incorrect and misleading. It has internal and external broken links, no mobile device responsiveness and would appear to serve no good purpose for the stakeholders directly or indirectly associated with it.
6. Any approach by the entity lodging the complaint to the current business holding the domain to cooperate has been rebuffed.
7. Permitting the 'owner' to "update the entity", in this case, as what seems to be an exception to auDA policy, is unlikely to result in what most would regard as a fair result.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of registrants losing domains on possible technicalities. I believe they should be given an opportunity to rectify / update eligibility details if at all possible. If they don't or can't, then it's fair enough that they lose the domain.

I understand and agree with the flexibility with respect to overlooked expiring business names for example.

However in this case where a .com.au domain is held by a company that was deregistered over two years ago and domain renewal fees have been paid since then and notices and opportunities to update the registrant status have been ignored, I would have thought that the only course of action was for the Registrar to apply to auDA to have the domain deleted in accordance with Sections 5.1 through 5.5.

Thank you for your detailed response to my question. Much appreciated.

 

[Joel]

We have lodged a complaint with a Registrar of Record regarding a .com.au domain which is held by a deregistered Australian company.
The Registrar in this case responded as follows:
"We have notified the registrant of their deregistered entity. They have 14 days to update the entity,or the domain will be deleted and available for public registration."
It was our understanding that if a complaint was lodged with the Registrar for a .com.au domain held by a deregistered company the only option was for the domain to be deleted.

In the case of policy 2004-01, section 5, I've been told by auDA that the registrar gives the registrant time to act upon the complaint prior to the 30 day cancellation period, despite there being no set amount of time in the policy for this to occur. This is the 14 days you mentioned. After the 14 days, it's then another 30 days before it enters pendingDelete for 3 days.

If the registrar does not follow the policy or ignores/disregards your emails, contact auDA and ask them to contact the registrar.

I understand and agree with the flexibility with respect to overlooked expiring business names for example.

However in this case where a .com.au domain is held by a company that was deregistered over two years ago and domain renewal fees have been paid since then and notices and opportunities to update the registrant status have been ignored, I would have thought that the only course of action was for the Registrar to apply to auDA to have the domain deleted in accordance with Sections 5.1 through 5.5.

I agree. In my opinion, eligibility should be re-checked as part of the renewal process.

 

[neddy]

Thank you for your detailed response to my question. Much appreciated.

@johnf - good explanation of situation.

Did you try and make the registrant an offer for the domain? Or was that not practical under all the circumstances?

And do you now have a backorder in on the domain - or are you just going to take your chances on the expired auctions?

In my opinion, eligibility should be re-checked as part of the renewal process.

Totally agree Joel. But sometimes "stuff happens", and a renewal is done without checking past info supplied. That's why it's good that registrants are given 14 days to try and remedy / update (if required).

And it is interesting that the initial 14 days you talk about (followed by 30 days) is not mentioned in policy anywhere that I can see?

 

[Joel]

Totally agree Joel. But sometimes "stuff happens", and a renewal is done without checking past info supplied. That's why it's good that registrants are given 14 days to try and remedy / update (if required).

And it is interesting that the initial 14 days you talk about (followed by 30 days) is not mentioned in policy anywhere that I can see?

It's not in the policy. Section 5.2 of the policy states "The registrar must give notice to the registrant contact listed in the registry database that the domain name licence is cancelled and the domain name will be deleted in 30 calendar days."

In correspondence with auDA, the arbitrary timeframe that is 14 days (could be 7 or any other timeframe) is the period whereby "The registrar must give notice to the registrant contact". It allows the registrant time to contact the registrar in regards to the issue prior to the 30 day cancellation period.

Note, this is not how I read the policy, but how I was told to read the policy.

 

[johnf]

... @Joel In the case of policy 2004-01, section 5, I've been told by auDA that the registrar gives the registrant time to act upon the complaint prior to the 30 day cancellation period,

I can't find any ambiguity anywhere in auDA policy Section 5 regarding NON-EXISTENT REGISTRANTS - CANCELLATION OF DOMAIN LICENCE (their caps).
5.1 This section applies where the entity that held the domain name licence no longer exists. [NOTE 1] Examples include where a company, incorporated association or statutory body has been wound up or deregistered.
I can't see any ambiguity here. The domain in question holding the domain licence was deregistered in 2013.

5.2 The registrar must give notice to the registrant contact listed in the registry database that the domain name licence is cancelled and the domain name will be deleted in 30 calendar days. The registrar must use reasonable commercial endeavours to give notice (for example, if an email bounces, the registrar should attempt to send notice by fax or post).
There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity here. My reading of this is that the purpose of the 'notice to the registrant' is not to provide the registrant with the opportunity to update eligibility details but to inform them that they no longer hold the licence for that domain.

5.3 The registrar must delete the domain name at the end of the 30 day period. The domain name will enter "pending delete" status for 3 calendar days after which it will be dropped from the registry at a random time between 10.30am and 5.00pm AEST (or 11.30am and 6.00pm AEDT) on the next business day.
Once again, this seems very clear.

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).

5.5 The sole exception to the above rule is if:
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;
To my knowledge this is not the case and and it would be unlikely that the registrar would be aware of this when they offered the registrant the opportunity to update the entity or presumably they would have already done it.

b) the transfer meets the requirements outlined in auDA's Transfers (Change of Registrant) Policy (2008-08).
If the above conditions are satisfied, then the registrar must process the transfer of the domain name licence in accordance with auDA's Transfers (Change of Registrant) Policy (2008-08).

@neddy Did you try and make the registrant an offer for the domain? Or was that not practical under all the circumstances? And do you now have a backorder in on the domain - or are you just going to take your chances on the expired auctions?

As I originally indicated, any approaches were not well received. Whether or not the complainant has sought to acquire the domain name one way or another as a consequence of deletion, with respect, is another matter.

 

[snoopy]

Having said that, I'm not a fan of registrants losing domains on possible technicalities. I believe they should be given an opportunity to rectify / update eligibility details if at all possible. If they don't or can't, then it's fair enough that they lose the domain.

My reason for saying that is there are certain people who look for these issues; then make a complaint to auDA; and contemporaneously lodge a backorder with Netfleet. I wrote a couple of articles about this on Domainer.

For the record, I am not suggesting or implying that you are doing this.

Agree, as you say people go around looking for errors and making complaints, I think we even had a member here doing this a few years ago if I remember rightly? At the end of the day when a valuable domain gets deleted due outdated information this is a wealth transfer from the registrant to a drop catcher.

 

[johnf]

Once notified, auDA intervened promptly requiring the complaint to be dealt with under Section 5 rather than Section 4.
I had tried to contact auDA before posting to the forum but I sent to info@auda.com.au instead of .org.au and I only realised my error when the initial email bounced. auDA responded within minutes when I sent my enquiry to the right address this morning.

 

[Horshack]

I'll be interested to see the outcome here because I see these all of the time. In many cases the registrant companies and associated ABN's have been deregistered/cancelled 5 or more years ago and hold multiple domain names. However, from what I have seen it's pretty much a waste of time making a complaint because the AUDA seems to let the registrant update their details almost every time so I'd think twice before spending your hard earned on a backorder and then making a complaint. In fact section 5 of the Complaints (Registrant Eligibility) Policy seems to be a bit of joke as I question whether people can just make up a letter saying the deregistered company agreed to transfer the domain name to them. I think it's time to move to shorter .au domains and lose the rules so it can be just be easy like .com names or better still just relax the rules on .com.au/net.au names.

 

[chris]

An interesting discussion. I've always found auDA to be fair when it comes to giving domain owners a chance to correct a genuine problem. Domain registration is something that a lot of business owners don't understand.

I'm not making excuses for people gaming the system, but I've seen a lot of cases of businesses that haven't been given good (or any!) advice about the management of their domains. A lot of businesses have their web developers or marketing companies manage their domains for them, who themselves don't understand the processes or the importance of keeping their registration records current.

I know there are always people looking for loop holes, but I think it's important to protect the wider public, who still need a lot of education on the value and protection of their digital assets.

Note that I've said a genuine problem. I know that's not always the case.