What's new

mirandakerr.com.au

neddy

Top Contributor
An article has been posted in computerworld.com.au yesterday, with quite a colourful headline:

"Miranda Kerr cybersquatter charged by auDA"

The domain is in the name of Pacific Octane.

The headline itself is incendiary, and makes it appear as if James Wester has been arrested or charged on summons or something!
Thankfully that is one power that auDA do not have! ;)

Here is the article: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/400497/miranda_kerr_cybersquatter_charged_by_auda#closeme

James Wester has replied on his own blog: http://jameswester.com/blog/

I don't know the facts behind this, but I'm sure they will come out in time. There may be things we don't know. James has indicated
he intends taking legal action - against who and on what basis I'm not sure of at this stage.

However, I will make this general observation - auDA do have clearly defined policies for the .au space. We may not like or agree with
some of them, but until they are changed, they are the rules, and if you don't abide by them, then you are potentially asking for trouble.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
I didn't realise when I posted this morning that this issue had already been posted on the auDA website (yesterday). I read about it this morning on another forum.

Here is the auDA article: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/12092011/ It refers to the Courier Mail article that you referenced Bacon Farmer.

I have spoken with James this morning re this issue, and, as is always the case, there is always more than one side to a story.

I can't and won't say anymore than that for obvious reasons.
 

payattention

Archived Member
Looks like the original article has been deleted; smart move given the bullshit title. So sick of journo editorials instead of reporting the facts.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
3 major mistakes here,

1. Registering MirandaKerr.com.au
2. Offering it to her
3. Thinking the media would treat him well
 

Honan

Top Contributor
3 major mistakes here,

1. Registering MirandaKerr.com.au
2. Offering it to her
3. Thinking the media would treat him well
Hi snoop
What is the policy that makes registering Miranda's name a mistake?
It appears it was OK by AUDA for someone else to register jameswester.com.au
Regards
Ho
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Hi snoop
What is the policy that makes registering Miranda's name a mistake?
It appears it was OK by AUDA for someone else to register jameswester.com.au
Regards
Ho

Joe,

It doesn't require a policy to state that a registration like this is a mistake,

-The name is worth nothing
-The name represents someone popular and high profile
-Registering it looks like a squat

It has got all the elements of a "deletion" and approaching Miranda Kerr and speaking to the media has the elements of PR disaster.

AUDA probably don't care much about jameswester.com.au, and neither does the media.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Domain market Netfleet said the name would be up for sale on September 28 but prospective buyers would be warned "of potential risks surrounding the domain name.

Smart thing to do would be for the drop houses to say they won't be taking bids or going for it, otherwise the industry (and in particular drop catchers) can expect another media black eye come the 28th.
 

Lucas

Top Contributor
Smart thing to do would be for the drop houses to say they won't be taking bids or going for it, otherwise the industry (and in particular drop catchers) can expect another media black eye come the 28th.

In this particular case I would agree, however I don't really think it is the drop houses responsibility to police this sort of thing. I think most people know registering famous peoples names as a domain name is just asking for trouble.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
"James is well known in the domain community, he's a domainer and he does hold domains for profit so I think it's a bit disingenuous for him to indicate that he's not a cyber squatter," he said. (said Brett Fenton from NetRegistry)

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...r-squatting-20110914-1k8ql.html#ixzz1Xtk3nteh

Really Brett Fenton, of Netregistry, that's your definition of a cyber squatter. I wonder how NF, (owned by NetRegistry), who are probably the biggest sellers of domains held by cyber squatters *cough* domainers feels about that.

Brett were you were privy to the "commercial arrangement" which implies James did not offer it to MK's people for free?

So NetRegistry failed to transfer the domain because of paperwork eh, should've used Drop.com.au or Ventraip.com.au :)

Nice way to get some PR though if you have thick skin.
 
Last edited:

brettf

Regular Member
Unfortunately that quote didn't portray as intended. What I meant was that James is a domainer, he's has a large number of domains, to register mirandakerr.com.au and think he's not going to be called a cyber squatter, when he has zero relationship with her, well you don't need a crystal ball to see the train wreck coming.

I've been very clear publicly what my position on domaining is. I was on the first review panel that allowed the .au rules to permit registration of domains for the purpose of monetization, I was on the recent industry review panel for the domain aftermarket (with other members of this forum).

Just to clarify, I'm fine with domaining and monetization. I think there are many positives, but I think these are diluted by people registering intentionally either trademarks, peoples names, or typos on trademarks, and then contacting the legitimate owner to 'do a deal'.

Finally in the claimed administrative error on our end. That is complete crap. The parties arranged to transfer the domain from one account to another, which happened, then neither party completed a RNC for the domain. No RNC > no change in ownership.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
I'd edit my previous post if I could, just got beaten by the time out.

Apologies for the tone of my previous but I think some are having a free hit without knowing all the facts (or getting taken out of context) and I for one believe James to be altruistic and that he doesn't deserve some/most of the aggro.

Just to clarify, I'm fine with domaining and monetization. I think there are many positives, but I think these are diluted by people registering intentionally either trademarks, peoples names, or typos on trademarks, and then contacting the legitimate owner to 'do a deal'.

Yep totally agree.
 

joe

Top Contributor
off on a slight tangent here but this comment made me laugh

He's a true Australian Hero.

He's also protecting the vulnerable Calculators and Electricity of Australia.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
Just to clarify, I'm fine with domaining and monetization. I think there are many positives, but I think these are diluted by people registering intentionally either trademarks, peoples names, or typos on trademarks, and then contacting the legitimate owner to 'do a deal'.

I absolutely totally agree with you Brett. It's such a shame to read some of the comments appearing in relation to the Fairfax story. Here is one sample:

Just yesterday there was an article about a person with this exact same business model receiving death threats. It's pretty clear the these people are scum and any action to remove their greedy opportunistic business models is welcome in my opinion.

Cameron

:eek: :eek: :eek:

The parties arranged to transfer the domain from one account to another, which happened, then neither party completed a RNC for the domain. No RNC > no change in ownership.

I call James "the mad Yank" (to his face). Because imo he does do and say some strange things sometimes. :p And on other occasions he doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's properly, and that sometimes gets him into difficulty.

But for all that, I do believe in the main that he has a good heart.

In speaking with him yesterday about this saga, I truly believe he was originally trying to do the right thing, but quite simply the i's and t's weren't taken care of - and now it has backfired on him. That is a shame.

I'm sure he wishes he could have his time over again.

However, I go back to my original post in this thread. The headline in one of the original articles was "sensationalist" and incorrect. Quite rightly it was taken down.

And, as I said, auDA do have clearly defined policies for the .au space. We may not like or agree with some of them, but until they are changed, they are the rules, and if you don't abide by them, then you are potentially asking for trouble.
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top