auDA Board Elections

[neddy]

Earlier this year auDA changed the way they process memberships.

This blog article clarifies the situation:

http://blog.auda.org.au/2011/05/02/changes-to-auda-membership-processes/

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I am glad we are talking about the elections, this election is really important in order to move toward change. Your vote is critical, as this election is going to be very tight.

As you are aware I am running for election to the Board and ask for your support.

There are many things that need to change, and for a change to happen new Demand Class directors are critical.

Unfortunately we are an over regulated domain space, when we compare Australia to New Zealand and the UK.

Many elements of regulation in .au don't have any sound basis, for example:

1. restrictions on monetisation, what do they achieve ? why don't other jurisdictions around the world have these restrictions ? Unfortunately some people scream about it, but don't understand what it is, and can't say why they oppose it except to say 'I don't like it';

2. the 6 month prohibition on resale of domain names, what does this seek to achieve and what does it protect against;

Not only do we have over regulation, but there is a disconnect between some board members and the industry / ordinary internet users. When was the last time you saw a Demand Class Director at a domain industry event or forum? I believe in being more accessible and getting out there to listen to views from all parts of the community.

While I know many of you, I encourage you to attend the next domainer networking function and say hi. It is scheduled for 5 October in Melbourne and is sponsored by Cooper Mills Lawyers and Netfleet, details will be posted shortly.

Cheers
Erhan

 

[neddy]

When was the last time you saw a Demand Class Director at a domain industry event or forum? I believe in being more accessible and getting out there to listen to views from all parts of the community.

Good points you raise Erhan. I have previously emailed all Demand Class Directors asking if they would care to make themselves known,
and I never even received the courtesy of a reply.

I will try again though - things may have changed.

I think you will make a great candidate, and you certainly have the support of everyone I talk to. You have always made yourself accessible
on DNT, by phone and in person - and you are to be commended for that.

With regards the 6 month prohibition, this was one of the issues covered by the recent Secondary Market Working Group.

In relation to policies generally, I'm hopeful we may see a number of positive changes in the near future. We just have to keep chipping away!
.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Thanks Ned!

I am surprised that you actually have their contact details

auDA has published the 2010 Names Policy Panel Report, you will notice that this has a Minority Report which I was involved in drafting, detailing what is wrong with the monetisation policy, it is available here.

As expected the board was made aware (via the minority report) of serious issues for small business / domainers and ignored them. This clearly shows why the existing demand class directors need to be voted out / replaced at this election.

 

[Ash]

Thanks for the link CMDL,

How long before these recommendations would be enacted do you think?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

the board has approved the report (excluding the minority report on monetisation), it is a matter of implementation, my guess is a couple of months

 

[joshrowe]

Hi All,

Ned has invited to me to participate in this forum, which I have accepted.

I am a current auDA Demand Class board member and I will be re-standing for election.

I think it's fantastic that there has been renewed interest in auDA membership, being involved in policy development (such as through auDA policy advisory panels) and being on the auDA board. It is your interest that will drive improvement in how .au is operated.

I have been working in the Internet industry for 20 years, deriving commercial benefits from its use.

Domain names are a fundamental element of the Internet industry which are relied upon by end users to make purchasing decisions every day.

Specifically regarding the .au domain name industry, I have:
- participated in two Name Policy Advisory Panels, including the most recent which Simon & Erhan were also on
- driven down the auDA domain name fee
- actively participated in the debate of Australian and global domain name governance
- completed research on the usability of domain names
- been a staunch consumer advocate within the Australian domain name industry

Broadly, I believe the .au domain name space has a valuable "brand" compared with other domain name spaces. Take for example the .com domain name space where anyone can register (practically) any domain name versus .au where there are policy requirements that mean "registered" entities are associated with domain names.

I believe this leads to increased confidence by end users in the .au domain name space, which is evident in the growing number of .au domain names being registered.

In carrying out my role as an auDA board member I consider the complete domain name industry supply chain including: End Users, Registrants (including domainers), Specialists (e.g. lawyers), Resellers, Registrars, Registries and Regulators.

I won't post an essay on all my views - if you want an essay then my Masters thesis on domain names is over here: http://domainusability.com !

If anyone has any questions about .au related things then please feel free to ask away. I may not be able to answer everything, but I'll do my best.

Regards


Josh

 

[neddy]

Hi Josh,

Great post – and thank you for taking the time to do it.

I’ve tried over time to get auDA Demand Directors to introduce themselves to our group of constituents, but have never had a reply. Perhaps I had wrong email addresses! You could possibly let them know we exist!

I think sometimes “domainers” feel quite unloved by auDA (more often than not). That’s why we have made a concerted effort this year to get our members to join auDA so that they can actually have more of a say.

That doesn't mean to say that we're all auDA “baggers”. The staff there are really nice people once you get to know them, and in my experience, they do try and be helpful within the constraints of the policies.

Whilst I don’t agree with lots of things, I believe gentle persuasion and slow steps work far better in the long run.

An example of this is the "6 month rule". This has been a real problem for lots of people (and not just domainers), but fortunately that is now changing.

Anyway, I look forward to engaging with you on DNT. I’m sure you will cop a few moans and a few suggestions, but that goes with the territory!

Cheers, Ned (Admin)

 

[FirstPageResults]

Welcome Josh,

We don't often hear much from current board members, so it's nice of you to introduce yourself.

Do you mind sharing your stance on "Domain Monetization" with us?

 

[Honan]

Hi All,

snip
Broadly, I believe the .au domain name space has a valuable "brand" compared with other domain name spaces. Take for example the .com domain name space where anyone can register (practically) any domain name versus .au where there are policy requirements that mean "registered" entities are associated with domain names.

I believe this leads to increased confidence by end users in the .au domain name space, which is evident in the growing number of .au domain names being registered.

snip
Regards


Josh

Hi Josh
Great to see you post
Are you saying that if there were NO policy requirements that mean "registered" entities are associated with domain names, the number of .au names registered would not be growing more than they are now?
Regards
Joe

 

[Lemon]

Hi Josh.

How long have you been a Demand Class board member? is it 6, 8 or 10 years.
Why is it you only make statements just before an election?

As a representative of registrants do you believe that you should be easily accessible and listen to their questions or concerns, bringing up their issues at board meetings where warranted and acting on their behalf?

Perhaps you should "post an essay on all my views" as to date I am still at a loss to understand what you stand for. This is an election and my vote will go to who I feel will represent me best on the board. This goes for all nominees as I think an open discussion would benefit all voters.

Regards
Lemon

 

[neddy]

Hi Josh.

How long have you been a Demand Class board member? is it 6, 8 or 10 years.
Why is it you only make statements just before an election?

As a representative of registrants do you believe that you should be easily accessible and listen to their questions or concerns, bringing up their issues at board meetings where warranted and acting on their behalf?

Perhaps you should "post an essay on all my views" as to date I am still at a loss to understand what you stand for. This is an election and my vote will go to who I feel will represent me best on the board. This goes for all nominees as I think an open discussion would benefit all voters.

Regards
Lemon

Hi Lemon - some good points that you raise.

But to be fair to Josh, he made a "statement" on here because I invited him to do so. I have sent invitations in the past to current Demand class directors, and Josh is the only one so far to front up. Good on him for that.

I think it is important that DNT members that are auDA members (and there are quite a few of us these days!) get the chance to hear from those that want our vote.

And this is the perfect forum to ask any questions that you like. Perhaps all people standing for election can answer them, and then I'll do a summary later in the month.

 

[joshrowe]

Hi Josh.

How long have you been a Demand Class board member? is it 6, 8 or 10 years.

I was first elected to the auDA Board in 2001 and I am still very passionate about improving the way .au is run. In fact when I was elected in 2001 I thought the whole .au domain name space was in a terrible state. The domain name policy at the time only allowed one domain name per organisation and had really stupid rules for deriving domain names from business names. I was involved in the Names Policy Panel which brought about the changes to the old policy.

More recently, I was involved in the board committee which set up the first monetisation policy, whilst it was not perfect before it existed domain monetisation was not officially recognised.

Hi Josh.
Why is it you only make statements just before an election?

I am new to this forum (thanks for the invite Ned). However, I also participate in a wide variety of online and offline "forums". Including; whirlpool, the DNS list, the Link list, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, ICANN At Large list, ccNSO forums and others.

Hi Josh.
As a representative of registrants do you believe that you should be easily accessible and listen to their questions or concerns, bringing up their issues at board meetings where warranted and acting on their behalf?

Yes, and you are welcome to contact me directly any time (not just before elections).

Also, every auDA board meeting has a standing agenda item for "board correspondance", so there is always a mechanism for issues to be raised with the auDA board (even without the assistance of an auDA board member.

Perhaps you should "post an essay on all my views" as to date I am still at a loss to understand what you stand for. This is an election and my vote will go to who I feel will represent me best on the board. This goes for all nominees as I think an open discussion would benefit all voters.

Regards
Lemon

I am going to write a blog post which outlines my views in more detail, so I will share that here. No matter what I do write, I will not cover every issue - so please feel free to tease out anything that is not clear.

 

[joshrowe]

Welcome Josh,

We don't often hear much from current board members, so it's nice of you to introduce yourself.

Do you mind sharing your stance on "Domain Monetization" with us?

Yes, I will share my views on domain monetisation. I realise this is one of the keys areas in which "domainers" see potential for improvement.

I'll do this over the weekend though so I can articulate my thoughts clearly.

 

[joshrowe]

Hi Josh
Great to see you post

Thanks for having me here!

Are you saying that if there were NO policy requirements that mean "registered" entities are associated with domain names, the number of .au names registered would not be growing more than they are now?
Regards
Joe

It's hard to predict what what would happen with the growth of .au domain names if there were no policy requirements. The price of domain names would obviously reduce - so you would expect that would increase growth.

However, I argue that mimicking ".com" policy (i.e. no policy) would lead to registrants choosing ".com" over ".au". I don't have empirical data to prove this, except for my own experience talking to those in business and consumers about the reasons why they choose different domain name extensions (as registrants and end users).

In conversations I have had, consistently ".au" comes up as a domain name extension which has integrity and reliability in the eyes of end users (i.e. those who view web sites, use email addresses, transact on eCommerce sites, etc).

I believe this is directly related to the .au domain name policy in place.

 

[Shane]

Welcome Josh.

I know my stance is not in line with some other DNtrade members, but I agree with Josh regarding the integrity of .au domains and think that some level of regulation should remain in place to protect this integrity for as long as we can.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Josh it is good to see you on a domain industry forum for the first time (that i have seen) in 10 years.

Your position on monetisation is clear, you say yourself:
'More recently, I was involved in the board committee which set up the first monetisation policy'

You wear it as a badge of honour!

It may be a good idea for you to explain to the forum:

(a) why it is that you voted to support continuing regulation during your tenure over the past 10 years, for example the monetisation policy, the prohibition on resale and subsequently the 6 month ban on resale of domain names;

(b) why you voted against the getting rid of monetisation restrictions in the recent August board meeting;

(c) why you supported legal action through the Courts against domain name holders who were hard done by auDA decisions;

 

[joshrowe]

Good luck with your campaign to be elected to the auDA board Erhan. Please play fair.

Josh it is good to see you on a domain industry forum for the first time (that i have seen) in 10 years.

The domain name industry has a number of players in the supply chain;
- end users (those who use domain names to visit web sites, use email, etc)
- registrants (those who licence domain names)
- resellers (those who retail domain names on behalf of registrars)
- registrars (those who retail domain names)
- registries (those who wholesale domain names to registrars)
- regulators (those who regulate the domain name space

To engage with each of the participants above, I participate in a wide variety of "forums" both online and offline including; whirlpool, the DNS list, the Link list, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, ICANN At Large list, ccNSO forums, auDA events, ICANN meetings, RMIT University research and many others.

Ned invited to me this forum and I accepted the invitation with thanks.

Try this Google search to see my online contribution about domain names:
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=josh+rowe+domain+name

Your position on monetisation is clear, you say yourself:
'More recently, I was involved in the board committee which set up the first monetisation policy'

You wear it as a badge of honour!

The introduction of the first monetisation policy was an improvement because it legitimised an existing commercial business model where the policy was previously silent. That is, it gave better certainty to domainers where there had been uncertainty before. The latest changes to be introduced to .au domain name policy regarding domain monetisation aim to improve the policy again (see below).

As I said to FirstPageResults above; I will share my views on domain monetisation. I realise this is one of the keys areas in which "domainers" see potential for improvement.

I'll do this over the weekend though so I can articulate my thoughts clearly.

It may be a good idea for you to explain to the forum:

(a) why it is that you voted to support continuing regulation during your tenure over the past 10 years, for example the monetisation policy, the prohibition on resale and subsequently the 6 month ban on resale of domain names;

As per above I will respond separately regarding my views on monetisation.

Domain name selling is not prohibited anymore and I supported the removal of the prohibition.

Likewise the 6 month ban on resale of domain names is also going to be removed, as announced recently by auDA here: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-05092011/ - well done Ned for being part of the process to get this change through.

Both of these changes demonstrate that .au policy is not static and can be improved AND industry members (like those on these forums) can effect change (just ask Ned).

I got involved in auDA 10 years ago because the domain name policy was insanely restrictive and needed fixing, read section 4.9 of my thesis to see how restrictive the policy was back then !

http://domainusability.com/Improvin...omain-Name-Policy-Evaluation-by-Josh-Rowe.pdf

(b) why you voted against the getting rid of monetisation restrictions in the recent August board meeting;

The Names Policy Panel did not propose "getting rid of monetisation restrictions".

I suspect you may be referring to the to the minority panel report (which you co-authored), the board had the following public comments to make on it (refer to the soon to be published auDA Board minutes for August 2011). I support these comments.

The Board noted the minority report regarding domain monetisation (at Attachment B of the Panel’s report). The Board did not agree with the alternative recommendations put forward by the authors of the minority report. In particular, the Board considered that removing clause 4.3(a) of the Policy would undermine the operation of the close and substantial connection rule, which is an integral part of the .au policy framework. In addition, the Board read the minority report as implying that the Panel was not suitably qualified to consider the issues. The Board was satisfied that the Panel was suitably qualified, and had followed proper process (including 2 rounds of public consultation), to make recommendations to the Board on domain monetisation. Accordingly, the Board did not consider it necessary to convene a different group to deal with the issue.

The domain monetisation changes to .au domain name policy which the auDA board did accept are documented here:

from: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-30082011/

auDA Board accepts final report of 2010 Names Policy Panel
30/Aug/2011

The auDA Board has accepted the final report of the 2010 Names Policy Panel, which recommended changes to a number of .au domain name policies.

The following recommendations were accepted:

...

Domain Monetisation Policy:

That:
1. the Domain Monetisation Policy (2008-10) should be abolished as a separate policy;
2. Schedules C and E of the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open 2LDs (2008-05) should be amended to include domain monetisation under the close and substantial connection rule for com.au and net.au domain names (as exemplified in Attachment A to the Panel’s report);
3. the existing conditions of use on domain names registered on the basis of domain monetisation under the “close and substantial” connection rule should be retained;
4. the definition of “domain monetisation” should be replaced with a description of permissible practice, to accommodate a range of monetisation models; and
5. the Guidelines for Accredited Registrars on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs (2008-06) should be amended to include additional explanatory material regarding domain monetisation.

...

(c) why you supported legal action through the Courts against domain name holders who were hard done by auDA decisions;

That is a very broad statement which impossible to directly respond to.

Every auDA board meeting has an agenda item to consider board correspondance. If you have a grievance that you wish the board to consider then please raise it via that process.

What I won't be doing is publicly commenting on legal matters associated with auDA. I'm not a lawyer and don't intend to become one soon.

 

[neddy]

I just want to jump in here before things get too heated.

The whole purpose of this thread is to find out where prospective candidates for election or re-election stand on various issues.

Josh responded to an invitation to jump into the "lions den", and for that he deserves kudos. Not all of us may agree with everything he says, but we should allow him the opportunity to state his case.

I for one look forward to Josh's thoughts on monetization.

So please ask questions; please challenge where you think necessary - but in doing so, I would respectfully request that we all try and remain cordial.

At the end of the day, we all have the ultimate power of voting for those we believe can best represent our interests.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Thanks for responding Josh. I have always played fair in elections. I don't have any personal animosity toward you or any other candidate I am running against, but I disagree with what you and other demand class directors have done – that is why I am running as an alternative.

I believe that I have a lot to contribute and I am the only candidate that truly understands / supports the domainer and small business community who have always been neglected.

I am always happy to debate any other candidate on the facts and issues that effect the .au constituency – Any Time Any Where. People on DnTrade know that, and for this reason I have never held back on fighting for what is right and fair, in particular fighting unreasonable policy which has no sound basis.

I am a lawyer who works in this area so I speak to most of the people on this forum regularly (as well as other domain name consumers and small businesses) and usually see the results of what unreasonable policy does. I see people’s livelihoods negatively impacted.

In response to your comments:

• The monetisation policy is NOT an improvement that legitimised a commercial business model – this is the standard auDA PR line. There could be nothing further from reality. The policy you helped implement and continue to support, actually continues to impose the most draconian restrictions that I know of in the whole world (China and Iran don't have these restrictions!)– they severely impact everyone on this forum. It doesn't truly facilitate monetisation except a one liner, which is more for PR than practical effect.
  
• As a Board member you supported the original restrictions and the 6 month rule, the fact that has been abolished is due to pressure from the domainer community and the good work of people like George, Brett and Ned on the working group;
  
• You seem to imply that the .au policy is no longer restrictive – this is not true, just take a look at .uk and .nz as a comparison, they don't have the restrictions we have;
  
• You and other board members had an opportunity to vote to accept the recommendations of the minority report but you preferred to retain restrictions on monetisation and accept the majority panel, of which you were a member. If I were on the board I would have voted in favour of the minority report;
  
• The Instra and Hitpro cases are two cases in which auDA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on;

In the meantime I remind all domainers and small business to come to our networking night on 5 October 2011, details are here, and I am happy to discuss your concerns in person.