What's new

Josh Rowe's public apology to auDA

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Huawei and ZTE employees would be welcome to join auDA and given the Chair's current stance on new members, he wouldn't have an issue with that or would he?
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
You support these scumbags and their branch stacking of the demand class membership right?
I support a constitutional change in line with the Government recommendations.

Your commercial entity will financially benefit from the largesse distributed via auDA's proxy Afilias right?
My commercial entity has always financially benefitted from .au domain names. We're a business, we sell domain names, I think it's pretty clear-cut.

The co-marketing fund has been in place for many years and registrars have been able to use that at the discretion of Neustar. Now, auDA has decided to make that process transparent, and if I recall correctly, they intend to publish who got what and why. Unless I am under an NDA, which to my knowledge I am not, I will happily tell you when we receive money from that fund and what we used it for but to date, we have not received any money from that fund.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Nah you support the admittance of 955 foreigners who will hold sway at the next General Meeting.

You're as slippery as a liberal voting for a new PM.

The co-marketing slush fund never amounted to $12 million dollars. The increase in size will certainly buy votes. Well we've probably seen that already.

The fact that supply side is happy to look the other way whilst the demand class is stacked with foreigners speaks volumes for your outlook. It's obviously commercial and not in the best interests of the Australian public.
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
Nah you support the admittance of 955 foreigners who will hold sway at the next General Meeting.
Did you support members of this forum and others in this industry controlling multiple votes at prior meetings, through the proxy of family and friends being faux auDA members, in order to stack the votes in demand to ensure your preferred candidates were placed on the board? The answer is yes.

The co-marketing slush fund never amounted to $12 million dollars. The increase in size will certainly buy votes. Well we've probably seen that already.
It means less money going to the registry operator and more money going back to offering promotions for .au domain names. If you don't see this as a win for consumers then you're dead wrong. This will encourage competition amongst registrars and due to the rules give smaller registrars more money to compete with the bigger players.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Did you support members of this forum and others in this industry controlling multiple votes at prior meetings, through the proxy of family and friends being faux auDA members, in order to stack the votes in demand to ensure your preferred candidates were placed on the board? The answer is yes.

It means less money going to the registry operator and more money going back to offering promotions for .au domain names. If you don't see this as a win for consumers then you're dead wrong. This will encourage competition amongst registrars and due to the rules give smaller registrars more money to compete with the bigger players.

Please list all of the last 17 years of .au domain name promotions funded by .au Domain Name Consumer fee's used for "Marketing funds" which have been passed on by .au Registrars?

Specifically those which ended up of benefit for the .au domain name consumer under the last 2 years of current auDA Management.

Where is the "win for consumers" you say has been occurring and will occur?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Did you support members of this forum and others in this industry controlling multiple votes at prior meetings, through the proxy of family and friends being faux auDA members, in order to stack the votes in demand to ensure your preferred candidates were placed on the board?

You mean like:
  • Alex Leptos
  • Helen Leptos
  • Lillian Leptos
  • Luci Leptos
  • Julia Trafford
yeah, I get your point. Remember it was the responsibility of the Board to approve the application.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Did you support members of this forum and others in this industry controlling multiple votes at prior meetings, through the proxy of family and friends being faux auDA members, in order to stack the votes in demand to ensure your preferred candidates were placed on the board? The answer is yes.

I did what? Thanks for the smear - playing the man when it suits you eh?

I'm pretty naive when it comes to branch stacking but it appears the independent Chair and supply side director Vice Chair have family members in demand class. You might want to cast aspersions in that direction?

It means less money going to the registry operator and more money going back to offering promotions for .au domain names. If you don't see this as a win for consumers then you're dead wrong. This will encourage competition amongst registrars and due to the rules give smaller registrars more money to compete with the bigger players.

I don't follow your logic or lack thereof. If auDA passed on the savings of $3 per domain you wouldn't need to piss $12 million dollars into the wind on ineffectual promotions.

The $3 sucked up by auDA if passed as a price cut would create a greater level of demand than any promotions. Economics 101.

It wouldn't help curry favour amongst supply side entities though or ultimately control of auDA.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
I did what? Thanks for the smear - playing the man when it suits you eh?

I'm pretty naive when it comes to branch stacking but it appears the independent Chair and supply side director Vice Chair have family members in demand class. You might want to cast aspersions in that direction?



I don't follow your logic or lack thereof. If auDA passed on the savings of $3 per domain you wouldn't need to piss $12 million dollars into the wind on ineffectual promotions.

The $3 sucked up by auDA if passed as a price cut would create a greater level of demand than any promotions. Economics 101.

It wouldn't help curry favour amongst supply side entities though or ultimately control of auDA.

How much of that money is coupled to the promotion of the companies brand whilst promoting a small price reduction for NEW registration?

why are we asking these questions?
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
I did what? Thanks for the smear - playing the man when it suits you eh?
LOL. If you don't support what they did to get Ned and Nicole on the board then go on record saying so. But until you do you will be painted by the same brush, much like you continually do to me.

I don't follow your logic or lack thereof. If auDA passed on the savings of $3 per domain you wouldn't need to piss $12 million dollars into the wind on ineffectual promotions.

The $3 sucked up by auDA if passed as a price cut would create a greater level of demand than any promotions. Economics 101.
Economics 101, eh? I find it interesting because there was a permanent price reduction that came in to effect on July 1, in conjunction with a month-long promotion in July, but it hasn't done a great deal to boost sales.

In fact, I would say that the 1-5 year registration has done more to boost sales than the price. You need to understand that the more people who know and use .au benefits your segment of the market too.

Competition is healthy and by actively encouraging competitive prices and good brand awareness (for .au) you have a groundswell effect that drives the namespace. And .au isn't the only one to do this. It's done by pretty much everyone from time to time, so long as you can guarantee growth. You think the $1.95 .co's we do is paid for by us? It's registry-driven promotions and it has been going on for many years now.

auDA have done the right thing by making the process transparent and accountable, something that is not done by any other registry that we deal with.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
You mean like:
  • Alex Leptos
  • Helen Leptos
  • Lillian Leptos
  • Luci Leptos
  • Julia Trafford
yeah, I get your point. Remember it was the responsibility of the Board to approve the application.

I should also add, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits "related Entities" from becoming Demand Class Members (family, or non-supply related entities as a group of companies) on that basis, Leptos can have his family become Demand Class members but, you got to question whether its a material conflict of interest exists, considering his remuneration as Chair of auDA (could be the conflict of interest) at stake. There is however a provision that prohibits supply class "Related Entities" from becoming Demand class Members. i.e. directors ... relatives, spouses, of Directors..etc...but I've never seen it enforced. Recently, the minutes do indicate a Netfleet applicant, was initially declined by the board.
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
How much of that money is coupled to the promotion of the companies brand whilst promoting a small price reduction for NEW registration?
It's not always on a new registration. You saw just a couple of months ago there was a renewal campaign that happened but it wasn't very effective due to the convoluted process involved to check eligibility, and that also didn't assist any companies or their brands.

Like I said, these campaigns are done all over the world and have a lot of positive effect on growth in the namespace.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
It's not always on a new registration. You saw just a couple of months ago there was a renewal campaign that happened but it wasn't very effective due to the convoluted process involved to check eligibility, and that also didn't assist any companies or their brands.

Like I said, these campaigns are done all over the world and have a lot of positive effect on growth in the namespace.

fair enough, but should we not all see the budget and or its method of allocation?
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
LOL. If you don't support what they did to get Ned and Nicole on the board then go on record saying so. But until you do you will be painted by the same brush, much like you continually do to me.

Oh you think Ned and Nicole were branch stacked onto the board? And yet here we are less than a term later with no elected demand directors and you think the demand side holds power.

Economics 101, eh? I find it interesting because there was a permanent price reduction that came in to effect on July 1, in conjunction with a month-long promotion in July, but it hasn't done a great deal to boost sales.

Very small price reductions get very small increases in demand?

auDA have done the right thing by making the process transparent and accountable, something that is not done by any other registry that we deal with.

Transparent, accountable and auDA - thanks for the laugh.
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
Oh you think Ned and Nicole were branch stacked onto the board? And yet here we are less than a term later with no elected demand directors and you think the demand side holds power.
As it has become clear in recent weeks, based on the existing constitution there are quite a few resellers and domainers who should not hold demand memberships, in addition to many of those who currently hold both.

Very small price reductions get very small increases in demand?
Price alone does not drive growth in any industry, especially one as niche as domain names. You need to be able to market the product and the price to consumers in conjunction with your service offering (aka the 'differentiator').

Transparent, accountable and auDA - thanks for the laugh.
It sounds like you don't want them to be any of those things, otherwise, you wouldn't mock them when they actually are.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
As it has become clear in recent weeks, based on the existing constitution there are quite a few resellers and domainers who should not hold demand memberships, in addition to many of those who currently hold both.


It would be more correct to say some demand members may need to be moved to supply.

So far the only "removal" has been a supply side member. It needs a full audit of the entire membership base.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
As it has become clear in recent weeks, based on the existing constitution there are quite a few resellers and domainers who should not hold demand memberships, in addition to many of those who currently hold both.

Says the supply side employer who encouraged his employees to join the demand side. Do they vote for themselves or do you have a meeting at work first to decide?

Price alone does not drive growth in any industry, especially one as niche as domain names. You need to be able to market the product and the price to consumers in conjunction with your service offering (aka the 'differentiator').

Thanks for the info but you didn't even pass on the small price reduction did you?

It sounds like you don't want them to be any of those things, otherwise, you wouldn't mock them when they actually are.

A logical and insightful comment - thanks for another laugh.
 

Cheyne

Top Contributor
It needs a full audit of the entire membership base.
I completely agree, but when it's a single class model it will be irrelevant.

Says the supply side employer who encouraged his employees to join the demand side. Do they vote for themselves or do you have a meeting at work first to decide?
Because, per the constitution, that is where they are to be members. If they had applied as supply members they would have been knocked back by the board and changed to demand.

Thanks for the info but you didn't even pass on the small price reduction did you?
Yes we did, at both a wholesale and retail level.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Because, per the constitution, that is where they are to be members. If they had applied as supply members they would have been knocked back by the board and changed to demand.

Do you agree the constitution prohibits "Directors" of supply class entities from becoming demand class members - e.g. only One vote per Legal Person- "Membership is held by a Legal Person, and each Legal Person may only hold one membership in auDA." Directors are related entities of the body corporate (unlike employees apparently) why are these Directors separated from the Body Corporate and assigned to Demand Class? The company (its registered namesake) cant vote without Director(s)/Officeholder(s) casting the Vote on its behalf.
 

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
10,979
Messages
91,777
Members
2,061
Latest member
domino111

Latest posts

Industry and community links

Top