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

Government Slammed in Parliament over .AU proposal

Discussion in 'Domain News' started by snoopy, Feb 28, 2018.

  1. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,429
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    By “they” who are you talking about?

    Was a group that truly represents Australian business asked?
     
  2. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,429
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    The question is at what point does the panel not pass the “sniff test”. Can the panel not include that business representive and still be seen as credible by the public.

    In my view this is likely to play out in the media and the public is likely to pass judgment on the issue.
     
  3. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    104
    Do you have some evidence that the most appropriate They did not get asked?
    Jim made a list of his Theys which according to him did not get asked.
    Paul had a list of his Theys which he did ask and they declined.
    auDA presumably had a list of previous Theys which we have no evidence did not get asked.
    I am personally not an expert of the habits of Theys but unless someone can show me that their They is the best They and that their They was known to be the best They by auDA and that auDA did something to excluded that They, then I would be inclined to concluded that the process is not broken by the absence of your favourite They.
     
    Rhythm likes this.
  4. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,429
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    That is funny, you are asking me for evidence when I’m saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body?
     
  5. Rhythm

    Rhythm Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    163
    kangaroo court
    noun
    noun: kangaroo court; plural noun: kangaroo courts
    1. an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.
      "they conducted a kangaroo court there and then"
     
  6. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    104
    Same answer... yes it does and yes it will be seen as credible by normal people when they see that 1) The position was made available 2) Offers where made to suitable candidates 3) The candidates declined 4) The candidates are still able to make public submissions

    In
    Why on earth would normal people care about something like this? I cannot see this getting mainstream attention, they are far to busy worrying about who slept with whom in reality tv programmes.
     
    Lemon and Rhythm like this.
  7. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,429
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    Sorry to inform you Rythym but public opinion rules on most issues, that is democracy.

    If most people don’t like .au it simply won’t happen no matter what auDA thinks.
     
  8. Rhythm

    Rhythm Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    163
    They asked me.
    I think my body isn't too bad if you ignore the lack of 6-pack abs
     
  9. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,429
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    I suspect auDA was banking on this also. Doesn’t look to be panning out that way.
     
  10. Lemon

    Lemon Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    347
    It is funny that you are saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body.
    At the Melbourne meeting the first question I asked (10 minutes into the meeting when they were introducing the panel) was why there is not a peak business body representative and they answered the question.
    I am not defending them, but they did ask and get rejected.
    Personally I think they could have tried harder.
     
  11. DomainShield

    DomainShield Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    104
    The burden of proof is on the accuser.
    As far as I can tell you don't know who the appropriate body is.
    You don't know that they did not get asked.
    You do however know that the position was made available.
    You also know that people on the panel (both ACCC and ACCAN) told us they tried to get others involved.

    Would it be reasonable to assume that to the best of your knowledge multiple appropriate bodies where approached and apparently declined to be involved?
    Would it be reasonable to point out that your assertions that other appropriate bodies were not asked is based on what someone else wrote somewhere and you are repeating it because it fits your narrative?
     
    Lemon likes this.
  12. Rhythm

    Rhythm Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    163
    It's ok, your disinformation has never managed to inform me since the day you signed up
     
  13. Bacon Farmer

    Bacon Farmer Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    945
    No one has to get the position filled... unless they want the process to be seen to be, fair and balanced.
     
    snoopy likes this.
  14. Lemon

    Lemon Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    347
    Let us not forget a recently elected director was on the panel and should also be held responsible for not getting the position filled.
     
  15. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    FACT: The current auDA CEO, current auDA Board and PRP did not read all of the past submissions.
     
  16. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    As you would be aware their is still a Demand Class Direct Vacant position. The fact is the Demand class is not fully represented.

    This is apparently a deliberate attempt by some to hold power.... and push through whatever they want or stop the required changes members voted for from happening.
     
  17. Bacon Farmer

    Bacon Farmer Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    945
    Throwing mud at Ned eh? What were the election results? Going to run again this year?
     
    snoopy, joshrowe and Lemon like this.
  18. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    Once you listen to the audio you and others will not be continually pushing for this to be done as fast as is possible...

    If auDA push this through and officially announce the cut off date of 18 April 2016 drop catchers like DomainShield.com.au Drop.com.au Netfleet.com.au will all suffer a direct hit on your own businesses... and possibly worse.
     
  19. Lemon

    Lemon Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    347
    Of course there is the possibility that drop catchers could double their business by selling the .net.au version of the domain at the same time.
     
  20. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    789
    How?

    Please tell the truth....You where at the PRP meetings and you also should by now know the facts of the cut off date and affect on all names registered after that date.... .com.au, .net.au whatever.. No eligibility for the proposed .au at all if it is held in another extension already prior to 18 April 2016.

    You asked questions at the meeting about it.. remember?