Is this a tue story?

[Honan]

Friend of mine ( domainer A ) registers a LLL.com.au a couple of years ago on the grounds that he/she is going to monetize the name according the the current AUDA policy

However all domainer A does, is point the name to a PPC company, who has a wide ranging defintion of monetizing acronyms

Domainer B, a member of dntrade , sees the PPC web site for the LLL.com.au and complains to AUDA that the name is being used to monetize phrases other than the acronymn

AUDA asks domainer A to explain
AUDA rejects domainer A's explanation
AUDA then gives the domain directly to Domainer B without the name ever dropping, on the grounds that Domainer B has a web site that has 3 words as the title, and the acronymn exactly matches those 3 words
Both domainer A and Domainer B are sole traders
Is this a true story?

What policy allows AUDA to take a name from one domainer and give it to another?

Or maybe the story as told to me has lost something in the retelling

 

[snoopinc]

I'd like to know more about this story too. Hopefully someone can enlighten us since i own a short 2 letter domain.

 

[Simon Johnson]

Is this a true story?

What policy allows AUDA to take a name from one domainer and give it to another?

1. There are two sides to a story. Quite often I hear the side of small business and not that of auDA. As such, one of the things I've been campaigning for is transparency when it comes to decision making.

2. To my knowledge there is no policy which enables this to happen.

Hope this helps.

 

[shags38]

auDA had such a policy but when Joseph Goebbels was replaced as the member for proper gander on the committee for revampiring the the whole mundaytiser cistern the whole policy kommittee was interred by the commune partee.

 

[shags38]

Firstly I doubt auDA has any legal right to take from one and give to another - Solomon did once but they took that away from him as well. Has Domainer A launched any legal action Joe? If not get your friend to watch "The Castle" (again) - auDA would not have a case in my opinion - read the policy, it is hardly defencible in a court of law (well, maybe in Ethiopia) - there is far too much INTERPRETATION factor, even an apprentice lawyer would make mince meat of it.
The action itself is contradictory. Also, since when does one have to have a domain name that fits the purpose of the site - somebody forgot to tell Google, Yahoo and a million others - oh thats right, auDA is still approaching the 21st Century right?

Australian online internet marketing lags well behind most other developed nations - I wonder how much of the reason for that rests on the shoulders of the inner sanctum of auDA - the guardians of a "vital National resource".

cheers,
Mike

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I think the story wasnt played out as explained, there is no auDA Policy (except the auDRP) which allows a name to be taken from one person and given to another. There is something that we arent being told here.

The basis of this type of complaint in the Monetisation Policy - I have been campaigning hard for the removal of this policy. This policy in effect imposes censorship and discriminates against 'domainers' - the crazy thing about this policy is that it classes the Anti Cancer Council as a domainer. It does nothing and achieves nothing except to cause trouble for domain name registrants, and wastes auDA's time.

I wrote a blog post about this here

 

[Honan]

Yes, I now think my friend was conclusion leaping
Because an unkown person complained, and because the domain name was not on the drop lists of the drop companies on the day it dropped for policy delete, my friend presumed that the complainant and the registrant were the same person

I have pointed out that it is more likely that the complainant was a company that once owned the name in the distant past

Maybe my friend should have contacted Cooper Mills and asked for help in responding to the complaint

This story does show how conspiracy theories can be fed by the current system