Some of the Auda Policy changes needed

[DomainNames]

Changes we need

1. no need for abn or any other requirements etc. ( Its not needed in most other domain name extensions so why do we still have it?

2. reverse domain name highjacking stopped and the $5000 fine imposed as they do in Canada - example http://www.domainnamenews.com/cctld...lty-ca-reverse-domain-hijacking-decision/4905

$5000 to defendant policy http://cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf

4.6 Bad Faith of Complainant. If the Registrant is successful, and the Registrant
proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the Complaint was commenced by the
Complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel
or obtain a transfer of any Registration which is the subject of the Proceeding, then the
Panel may order the Complainant to pay to the Provider in trust for the Registrant an
amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) to defray the costs incurred by the
Registrant in preparing for, and filing material in the Proceeding. The Complainant will
be ineligible to file another Complaint in respect of any Registration with any Provider
until the amount owing is paid in full to the Provider.


3. No new extensions such as .au ( without the .com.au) There are many domain name registrars /resellers ( and possibly some inside auda ?) pushing for the new .au extension so they can again reap millions in new registrations. To have a new extension will create chaos for those who have invested in their online branding. Example if they go and release seek.au mycareer.au realestate.au travel.au etc etc can you imagine the chaos? Only people who will benefit are auda, Lawyers and the domain name registrars want to sell the same names again under more extensions

4. Increase the fee for lodging domain disputes. make it $5000 to lodge a dispute and allow the defendant to request a 3 person panel at no cost to them.

 

[djuqa]

A Valid ABN is NOT and Never has been the only way to qualify for .com.au & net.au registration
It is about time that Wrongful assumption is buried once and for all.

SCHEDULE C

ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR COM.AU

The com.au 2LD is for commercial purposes.

The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document.

1. To be eligible for a domain name in the com.au 2LD, registrants must be:
a) an Australian registered company; or
b) trading under a registered business name in any Australian State or Territory; or
c) an Australian partnership or sole trader; or
d) a foreign company licensed to trade in Australia; or
e) an owner of an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
f) an applicant for an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
g) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or
h) an Australian commercial statutory body.

2. Domain names in the com.au 2LD must be:
a) an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name or trademark; or
b) otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant.

Net.au has the same eligibility rules

 

[Bacon Farmer]

You lost me with 4.

There's probably more arseh*les squatting or trying it on as the reverse.

 

[DomainNames]

The reason the fee should increase to $5000 is to stop the amount of frivolous complaints lodged.

Normally ( if you check dispute history) its lawyers who file complaints . By making it a $5000 complaint process it stops their clients wasting time in lodging if they know they dont really have a strong case.

If it was free everyone would lodge a complaint and since the price is so low we see many complaints still being lodged for little reason but to " reverse domain name hijack" or bully less knowledgable registrants .

By making it $5000 and giving the respondant choice of 3 panelists it will greatly reduce wrongful claims, reverse hijacking and help settle matters outside of the process where possible. ( example they would probably offer a few thousand for a new to the owner instead of filing)

The .com.au is still one of the most backward and over-regulated in the world. I remember too long ago the CEO saying domains "could not be resold as no one owned them" .... "you an only get a domain name if you use a company name or registered business name, one domain only exact / or close to the registsred name & $120 for registration is fair price, no one can register a one word generic they are all reserved by Auda....."

Auda then realised the money to be made so they auctioned off generic names themselves.. etc

if anyone thinks Auda or any lawyers ( besides Cooper Mills maybe) has domainer's in its list of people to listen to think again. It's only been domainers who have helped the Australian marketplace. If it was still by Auda's old rules there would be little hope for Australia's online economy and free enterprise

 

[Bacon Farmer]

It's not free, it already costs $2k plus the lawyers fees which isn't a frivolous amount.

It shouldn't cost legitimate complainants that much to nail cybersquatters (note there's a huge difference between a legit domainer and a blatant cybersquatter).

 

[DavidL]

5) 6 month resale limitation rule abolished
6) Misspellings list scrapped
7) Misspellings policy scrapped
8) Monetisation policy wrt brand names scrapped
9) Extra 2 years rego for sold domains to go on top of existing rego period
10) Individuals allowed to register com.au and net.au domains (complicated one this one)

And the money saved by not having to devote resources to police these grey areas put into cheaper wholesale reg fees

 

[DomainNames]

costs for respondents / registrants in disputes

It's not free, it already costs $2k plus the lawyers fees which isn't a frivolous amount.

It shouldn't cost legitimate complainants that much to nail cybersquatters (note there's a huge difference between a legit domainer and a blatant cybersquatter).

You are missing the point. The cost of respondent is what AUDA needs to start considering. What is the cost for the respondent? Where does AUDA Policy address this

In all other types of law the respondent can get costs awarded if they win. Auda needs to look at this just like they did in Canada to assist respondents cover some of their costs if they win

http://cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf

4.6 Bad Faith of Complainant. If the Registrant is successful, and the Registrant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the Complaint was commenced by the Complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel or obtain a transfer of any Registration which is the subject of the Proceeding, then the Panel may order the Complainant to pay to the Provider in trust for the Registrant an amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) to defray the costs incurred by the
Registrant in preparing for, and filing material in the Proceeding. The Complainant will be ineligible to file another Complaint in respect of any Registration with any Provider until the amount owing is paid in full to the Provider.


The fact is as more and more names increase in value more and more frivolous complaints and disputes are lodged.

Your signature says " i love auda" if you work for them or know them you might like to ask them how they can assist respondents rights more if the respondent wins. Ask them also why .com names dont require eligibility requirements but .com.au still does?

Not sure how up to date you are on domain law and domain name registry history but there is not many cybersquaters around anymore. That term was thrown around 10 years ago when fools registered names they knew they had no right to and tried to sell it to rightful owners. ( example cocacola.com ) . The fact is those names can easily be cancelled by Auda now without even going to dispute process and panelists.

FYI Farfax Media ( Australia's largest media company) owners over 30,000 domain names in their partnership deal with OMG.com.au. Would you or Auda consider them cybersquaters?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

You are missing the point.

Actually I got your initial point and threw in my point.

Your real point is

What is the cost for the respondent? Where does AUDA Policy address this

On this point I'm sympathetic and the Canadian solution appears to have merit.

My signature is a balance for the previous nasty things I said about auDA due to issues I had with a squatter who is I believe 'passing off' a common law trademark of a friend's. auDA won't take action because the squatter is 'claiming' to run a business.

OMG is half owned by Fairfax, it's not a partnership deal.

Bloody oath they are squatters. Legal ones though. They played the system and won.

The vast majority are generics so couldn't really classify them as 'cybersquatters' could you?

 

[DomainNames]

Thanks for that Bacon Farmer may be we are not so different after all

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I bet you drink beer too .

Mate just twist Simon/Erhan's arm to put the .ca Bad Faith Complainant clause up at the next board meeting. Get some value out of that $22.

 

[mrchristo]

totally agree with point 4

internationally this is done by a 3 person panel from memory.
the $5k fee should also be imposed to stop 'hap hazard' complaints

but people do grab domains in 'bad faith' and then just park them or offer similar services so a 3 person panel is needed for a fair outcome