Direct .au takes over .net.au
- Thread starter trellian
- Start date
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Given the majority are defensive registrations, I don't think popular is the right word.
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi Bacon,
Any idea what % of .net.au domains are defensive registration? This is estimate over 90% based on our analysis.
While for .au 30% are brand new registrations that do not relate to an existing .com.au domain. Shows that .au is more popular than .net.au domains just based on these stats.
Any idea what % of .net.au domains are defensive registration? This is estimate over 90% based on our analysis.
While for .au 30% are brand new registrations that do not relate to an existing .com.au domain. Shows that .au is more popular than .net.au domains just based on these stats.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
So that's a 176,761 new defensive registrations and a combined 373,595 defensive domains.
All imposed on Australian business owners for no good reason bar the supply side seeking growth in revenue.
And the biggest selling point Notregistry had was for current holders to "defend your brand". No wonder they got vilified.
Anyone seen a new .au website in the wild?
All imposed on Australian business owners for no good reason bar the supply side seeking growth in revenue.
And the biggest selling point Notregistry had was for current holders to "defend your brand". No wonder they got vilified.
Anyone seen a new .au website in the wild?
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi Bacon, I would have much preferred .com.au policies to be reduced to allow non ABN/ACN holders to register a .com.au domain, but got a lot of push back on that front as that was the only thing that was allegedly making the .au names space one of the most secure and trusted domains available.
If changing the .com.au policies was not an option, then the only other option was to release .au and yes this creates additional costs for most businesses, but for the price of 2 coffees per year most businesses will barely notice this extra defensive registation... domain investors that have portfolios are however far more impacted as their holding costs could effectively double. Though we see that most are not applying for their .au rights as yet... in the next 20 days we should see a big spike and increase in such regisgtrations, as at the end of the day if you are a portfolio holder it is about having inventory to sell, so this effectively doubles your inventory and should increase your sales revenues as well.
If changing the .com.au policies was not an option, then the only other option was to release .au and yes this creates additional costs for most businesses, but for the price of 2 coffees per year most businesses will barely notice this extra defensive registation... domain investors that have portfolios are however far more impacted as their holding costs could effectively double. Though we see that most are not applying for their .au rights as yet... in the next 20 days we should see a big spike and increase in such regisgtrations, as at the end of the day if you are a portfolio holder it is about having inventory to sell, so this effectively doubles your inventory and should increase your sales revenues as well.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Yep at nitregistry prices the combined defensive registrations would add up to almost $9 million. An unwanted tax on small businesses.
And all for nothing given the massively underwhelming number of .au websites. I'm yet to have come across a single one in the wild.
I can't imagine the whole exercise for registrars will end up being all that lucrative either particularly with the falling .net.au numbers.
And all for nothing given the massively underwhelming number of .au websites. I'm yet to have come across a single one in the wild.
I can't imagine the whole exercise for registrars will end up being all that lucrative either particularly with the falling .net.au numbers.
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi, the number of registrations by extension is published by auDA on a monthly basis. Reports are on their website. The actual break up if new registration this information is provided directly by auDA (Bruce Tonkin) in their registrar briefings held with all the registrars.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
auDA must be too embarrassed to publicly show the rate of defensive registrations.
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi Bacon, if they were they would not be telling anyone...
Everyone knew that the initial wave of registrations would be defensive in nature, that was expected, 6 months only those that have the .com.au/net.au/etc.. were able to register their .au.
What was not expected was the much higher % of new registrations that were not defensive.
If there was a zone file we could analyze exactly what is going on exactly, but unfortunately auda/afilias do not publish one, instead we can only make educated guesses as to the .au space.
Everyone knew that the initial wave of registrations would be defensive in nature, that was expected, 6 months only those that have the .com.au/net.au/etc.. were able to register their .au.
What was not expected was the much higher % of new registrations that were not defensive.
If there was a zone file we could analyze exactly what is going on exactly, but unfortunately auda/afilias do not publish one, instead we can only make educated guesses as to the .au space.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
I'd suggest that sharing the numbers with registrars and not the public is incredibly telling and leaves them open to accusations of being pro supply and not pro consumer/business (the actual major stake holders). That they are quietly sharing it with supply insiders is not something they'll want exposed to sunlight.
It's obviously a very important KPI to them and to the supply side. The non disclosure / lack of transparency is I suspect due to it being something that could be a major source of embarrassment.
Anyway the lack of transparency is shocking.... er I mean expected.
It's obviously a very important KPI to them and to the supply side. The non disclosure / lack of transparency is I suspect due to it being something that could be a major source of embarrassment.
Anyway the lack of transparency is shocking.... er I mean expected.
trellian
Top Contributor
Bacon, all the stats are published here:
auda.org.au/industry/au-registry/registry-reports
Fairly detailed from what I can see.
As for a stat on the % that are defensive registrations, no one ever asked what the numbers of defensive registrations were of .net.au names... and who does this stat actually benefit ?? to have auDA try to extract it? Clearly would not benefit the end user, so why is it needed?
auda.org.au/industry/au-registry/registry-reports
Fairly detailed from what I can see.
As for a stat on the % that are defensive registrations, no one ever asked what the numbers of defensive registrations were of .net.au names... and who does this stat actually benefit ?? to have auDA try to extract it? Clearly would not benefit the end user, so why is it needed?
Last edited:
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
No all the stats aren't published there.
It's missing that key bit of data.
.net.au weren't being introduced as a new option decades later upsetting the status quo and were part of the original package of options.
The stat benefits the credibility of those that opposed the introduction of .au and diminishes those that supported it and continue to do so.
The stat is being shared amongst those that benefit from the introduction of .au so it is being extracted.... just not shared with the public.
It's missing that key bit of data.
.net.au weren't being introduced as a new option decades later upsetting the status quo and were part of the original package of options.
The stat benefits the credibility of those that opposed the introduction of .au and diminishes those that supported it and continue to do so.
The stat is being shared amongst those that benefit from the introduction of .au so it is being extracted.... just not shared with the public.
trellian
Top Contributor
I may not agree with how it was done, but I do understand the gap that .au was trying to fill that neither .id.au not asn.au were successful at doing. There was a clear need for an extension that did not require an ACN/ABN/TM. Hard to compete with any others that do not have such restrictions. Direct .au was the 1st step towards that to a more open namespace.
Have you asked auDA for these stats to be provided? Did they say no?
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Yes it's a shame the needs of the few that weren't satisfied with the .id.au (it's just uncool right) were put above the greater number of .com.au holders that were required to pay for the defensive registrations. Yes there was a need but no it shouldn't have been paid for by defensive registrations. It's lucky auDA aren't doctors and required to first do no harm.
Perhaps if you hold both the .com.au and .au you can get them connected in the backend administration and therefore only pay one reg fee? I won't hold my breath.
I don't think auDA would pay any attention to my request. Could you please ask for me? (joking
Perhaps if you hold both the .com.au and .au you can get them connected in the backend administration and therefore only pay one reg fee? I won't hold my breath.
I don't think auDA would pay any attention to my request. Could you please ask for me? (joking
trellian
Top Contributor
My preference at the time was to open up .com.au so that it did not require an ABN/ACN to register the domain, but that was discounted as having ABN/ACN attached to a domain was thought to have created a far more secure namespace. Now that .au is launched it seems to me that this is no longer a priority and I know that end users will have no distinctions between a .com.au and a .au website that they visit in terms of consumer confidence. Which leads me to the same opinion of why .com.au was not freed up some to enable Australian residents to register such domains.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Yes relaxing the requirements would have been a simpler and fairer solution if auDA were able to stop scammers.
