1. Welcome to DNTrade. If you want to find out about the latest domain name industry news or talk, share, learn, buy, sell, trade or develop domain names - then you've come to the right place. It's a diverse and active community, with domain investors, web developers and online marketers - and it's free! Click here to join now.
    Dismiss Notice

Does auDA publicly contradict the purpose of auDA PRP?

Discussion in 'Domain News' started by DomainNames, Feb 21, 2018.

  1. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    791
    https://namebid.com.au/articles/18/auda-existing-registrants-priority/
    "
    By: Robert Kaay
    Does auDA publicly contradict the purpose of PRP?
    [​IMG]

    In auDA's own PRP Issues paper, released a few weeks ago, on Page 14, in regards to implementing Direct .AU Registrations, they say:

    The Panel agrees with the 2015 Names Policy Panel Final Report that any change to the "system should generate new value" and not simply replicate "existing functionality."
    Yet, I propose this is a new viewpoint only very recently being publicly promoted by auDA, as at February 2018. And they only seem to be publicly stating this opinion now that the PRP disucssion points on how they believe Direct .AU should be implemented are being made available.

    Four months ago (October 2017), at this location, auDA publicly stated:

    As this is potentially the most substantial policy change to the .au domain space in over 30 years, auDA has convened a Policy Review Panel to examine the options and issues for the introduction of Direct Registration. The Panel has just published an Issues Paper and invites written submissions on the issues and options presented in the paper.
    But then, the very next day, (still in October 2017) auDA publicly stated:

    As mentioned in the Issues Paper, the Policy Review Panel will not be revisiting the merits of Direct Registration, but is interested in developing a transparent process for giving EXISTING REGISTRANTS PRIORITY to register the matching .au domain name.
    The keywords here being, that auDA publicly promoted in October 2017, that the PRP will be "interested in developing a transparent process for giving EXISTING REGISTRANTS PRIORITY to register the matching .au domain name".

    This is the exact line of thought that many people were believing was going to happen, when Direct .AU Registrations were VOTED IN to begin with.

    From statements like this, we were all lead to believe that the existing .COM.AU holders (with nearly 90% of those 3.1 million Australian domain names being owned by .COM.AU holders) would be given first rights to their .AU matching domain name. There was NO MENTION that there was going to be any sort of CUT-OFF DATE (in terms of when you were no longer eligible to own the matching Direct .AU of your .COM.AU if you registered a domain name).

    And this is why I was PRO Direct .AU Registrations.

    But I'm not anymore.

    I feel like I've been mislead. And the feedback I'm getting is, so does everyone else!

    Now to have the PRP promote their discussion points as DIRECTLY AGAINST what the auDA were promoting, and create a fictional CUT-OFF DATE of April 2016, out of thin air, this is causing most people to now say that the Direct .AU Registrations implementation process is BROKEN, and it now needs to be taken off the tracks and abandoned altogether.

    I copped a lot of flack from colleagues and business domain name holders at the time, for thinking Direct .AU Registrations were going to be implemented the right way and strengthen and shorten our domain name space.

    I told colleagues and domain name clients that I didn't believe we had anything to worry about; "shorter will just be a shorter option to our existing domains, and auDA are publicly stating they are interested in giving EXISTING REGISTRANTS PRIORITY."

    As mentioned in my last article, I no longer have faith in Direct .AU Registrations and I believe the decision to implement them should now be reversed by auDA in the interest of protecting the value and trust of the entire Australian domain name space for over 2.1 million Australian businesses for over 28 years.{
     
  2. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    All the standards have gone out the window. The panel just seems to want to come up with something, the "least worst outcome" and push things through, this is why we are now a the ridiculous suggestion of people buying lottery tickets as a way of allocating domains.

    I believe all this has come from the interfering CEO telling the panel that direct registration *will* go ahead and stressing no hierarchy of rights which means registrants will have to compete with each other in some shape or form. How can it be said that this panel is independent when the CEO is turning up to meetings telling them what to do?
     
  3. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    106
    Robert,
    I am not sure what has gone wrong or why you are taking panel discussion points and acting like they are policy points set in stone?
    These points are nowhere near implementation yet, they are discussion points, make a written submission on why com.au holders deserve to get the .au before everyone else. Make a submission about why that date is impractical. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Nothing has changed except your assumptions... Existing Registrants will still get first rights no matter how this turns out. The only thing that needs to change for you to be happy is com.au getting first rights. So stop blogging all the doom and gloom and write a reasoned response on why .com.au is important
     
  4. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    The CEO has already dictated to the panel that it is not possible for one extension to have rights above another.
     
  5. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    106
    Has that been written down somewhere or is this a case of someone overhearing or remembering a "fact"?
    From what I can tell the panel has identified certain fundamental rules like no heirarchy of rights and first come first served.
    So the logical argument to make is that you cannot meet both requirements at the same time, so you either don't do it or you do it but you follow international best practice by creating a temporary hierarchy of rights within the temporary direct registration implementation policy.
     
    Bacon Farmer likes this.
  6. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    The panel did not identify these rules, Cameron dictated them,

    Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 4.57.32 pm.png
    https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Uploads/auda-prp-minutes-20170927.pdf

    The end result is this, the supposedly independent panel has been told they must come up with something (because it *is* going to happen) & they can't give any extension rights over another. That scenario that Cameron has told them to follow can only lead to businesses having to compete for these names. They've thought up a lottery but it is headed to an auction in my view.
     
  7. Bacon Farmer

    Bacon Farmer Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    965
    Yep the hierarchy of rights fallacy - the ticket system for contestedname.au is open only to current contestedname.LLL.au holders but not anyone else who might otherwise be eligible to register it under the first come first served rule.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  8. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    106
    Thanks for that, I was trying to find the third rule.
    Can we stop being dramatic and using words like "supposedly independent panel" because they are provably independent of auDA (none of them work for auDA). One works for MelbourneIT, one for ACCC, one for ACCAN, one for the Lucky Country etc... do I need to go on?

    The way I see it the panel has proposed to use the no hierarchy of rights rule ahead of the first come first served principal. Logically in a first come first served scenario you would give the .au domain to the oldest registrant. So a simple submission is to propose giving the domain to the oldest registrant which then meets all three rules since the oldest domain could be .com.au, .org.au or .gov.au (no heirarchy of rights) it also meets the first come first served rule (older are treated as more important) and meets the no proprietary rights rule (trademark holders don't get special treatment). It would be worth also having a caveat that it should be important to factor in the release date of dictionary and geo .com.au domains so that they are not disadvantaged. It is also worth noting that this does away with the need for a "cutoff" date in 2016 which is entirely unsuitable considering that 40% of domains under management have been registered after that date. Another caveate would refer to the create date taking preference over the registration date so please don't lose the create date when you migrate the data from AusRegistry to Afilias. This method also does away with the need for a contested pool of domains and an auction/lottery system.

    I do not know if any of this would make a better outcome for domainers but the idea of this comment is just to show that using the rules you can put forward other suggestions, the whole idea of the public consultation was to get suggestions.

    I am getting tired now but there is nothing to stop anyone from making a submission in which following international best practice and using the rules more as guidelines could be proposed.
     
    Lemon likes this.
  9. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    791
    No submissions get read and really considered. Look at the submissions from Carsales.com.au and Realestate.com.au. They where totally ignored and they had a lot of valid points and concerns written a team of their lawyers! ( Who are now getting pretty pi$$ed off by the way... and they could swallow auDA up and Po% them out within a hour if they are forced to on this issue)

    "Existing Registrants will still get first rights no matter how this turns out" Sorry but that is 100% not correct and not what they have proposed or suggested at the PRP meetings or said on their powerpoints.

    Why do you think people are going crazy about this mess who really know what has been said and proposed?

    Read the posts from Robert Kaay and see what changed it for him! He woke up and hopefully others will also.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  10. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    106
    Do you have any proof that submissions are not read nor considered? Do you have a right to talk on behalf of REA Group or carsales.com ltd ? Do you seriously expect us to believe that you are in direct contact with their lawyers and they have bothered to elaborate on their "pissed off ness"?
    They need to and will stand up for themselves. If you want help from the dntrade community or even from someone like me on the supply side of the equation then you should tell us how it affects YOU, tell me what YOU need and I will endeavor to give an opinion on your predicament.

    I don't know for sure, sometimes people make a noise in order to get attention. Generally Robert is a very reasonable guy so I am genuinely interested to find out why he is so convinced the end of days is upon us.
    I've seen the confusion these panel discussions create before. I know for sure is that making a submission about how you are affected and making logical statements which relate to facts which you know to be true and are based on data you have seen or been a part of analyzing are taken seriously by panelists. Cutting and pasting or repeating things others said in blogs or online or in person to you cannot generally be taken seriously as there is no evidence provided. The panel tries hard to take input given and to verify it so if you make their job easier they generally appreciate it.
     
  11. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    791
    It is good to see you engaging. It's been a while and I understand the issues Domain Shield has had seemingly caused by auDA's announcements and other issues of panels, implementation models, them creating uncertainty in the .au name space and it being "significantly destabilised" etc.

    Forget trying to shoot me or others down on this issue. We expect it from people on these issues from some but Domain Shield would do far better to gain the support of us again and think it is for your own businesses benefit to NOT allow the crazy PRP suggestions or the mishandled process to continue. As a major project manager myself like you said you where I hope we can both agree.

    Forget trying to mute the "noise". People are angry and people are being affected.... You yourself said it when the Domain Shield did a "protest".

    https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/blackout-week-protest.11580/

    "Due to a lack of confidence in the future of .au domains I have decided to suspend my drop catching service (as well as new .au domain registrations) until there is more clarity on the future of the .au domains.

    The secondary market has been significantly destabilised by the announcement and then subsequent delays in the implementation of direct registrations by auDA.

    In recent discussions with auDA I am even more unsure of the future as it seems to me that the Registry Transformation Project and the Policy Review Project are not correctly aligned. Based on my experience as a project manager this will result in either further delays, increased costs or decreased quality.

    This protest starts 1 September 2017 and will run until at least until 7 September 2017 when the suspension will be reviewed again.

    Please note that we will still operate as an auDA accredited registrar during this period and registrants can still renew and manage their existing domains as per normal.

    I do not undertake this protest lightly as I am a small business owner and operator. I literally feed and dress my children on the income from this business.
    Anthony Peake

    Aug 31, 2017"



    Read this from Robert. That says it all plus the platform Ned and Nicole won the election on.

    https://namebid.com.au/articles/15/auda_prp_direct_au_registration/
    https://namebid.com.au/articles/16/prp-australian-domain-name-direct-au-registration-forums/
    https://namebid.com.au/articles/17/prp_trap_direct_au_registrations/
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  12. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    That is not what the word independent means,

    "free from outside control; not depending on another's authority"

    I believe that AUDA has meddled in this panel, the fact that the CEO is in the meeting listening, "addressing some of the issues", and suggesting what they do and don't consider suggest to me this panel is not independent of AUDA. What sort of panel has meeting where the CEO of the organisation they are trying to be "independent" from is in the meeting and then "clarifies" what the panel must be guided by?

    Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 1.44.01 pm.png
    He has given them no scope to say it can't be done in a fair manner. My reading of it is they now must come up with something, no matter how bad, because the CEO has said so.
     
    DomainShield likes this.
  13. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    791
    Is the new auDA Board committed to implementing direct registration knowing all that they know now and what some of them have said on the record?
     
  14. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    106
    Great point. In the 2015 names panel we had someone from auDA in the room who did set the scope of what we can discuss and to keep us on track with that scope. She also provided clarifications on things during the meeting, generally at the request of the panel.

    My understanding is that they must come up with something too, it would be sad if they just put their hands up and said it was too hard. The one thing he has never said is that the Board cannot reject their recommendation. I guess the worse the recommendation the less likely it is to get implemented or agreed on by the board. Maybe my idea to be sensible and shape the direction to be less detrimental is not a good idea... sigh
     
  15. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    AUDA has a limp commitment to .AU simply because they think it is too hard to go back. Obviously a chunk of the board want to scrap it and most members are against it.
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  16. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    In my view they are being pushed to come up with something, even where it is the "least worse idea". That is my reading on the minutes and having been in the Melbourne meeting, they seem to be backing away from making any recommendation that there is no fair way.

    Obviously the end result of this "push" could be a very damaging system of implementation.
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  17. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    791
    Something like "least worse idea" was actually said in Sydney by the PRP at the meeting! Do you have the audio? :)

    Getting to the stage Wikileaks will need to get info for the public to meet the Constitution..
     
  18. findtim

    findtim Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    all boards make decisions based on a huge range of information, including recommendations from panels, a board has every right to reject a recommendation, equally accept one, when push comes to shove its the directors AR*E on the line.

    tim
     
  19. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,444
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    I'm pretty sure they described the proposal in that way in Melbourne also.