auDA Board Elections

[joshrowe]

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.

What do other members of this forum think?

Did the first monetisation policy:
1. Give more certainty over the previous policy (silent on the legitimate business model of domain monetisation),
2. make things worse or
3. make no difference at all ?

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.

What policy framework do you propose .au uses?

What should the over arching policy objectives be?

I suggest you start with section 6 of this document and modify as you see fit: http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/2007npp-issues-paper.pdf

How will this policy benefit all .au stakeholders (refer above for the domain name industry supply chain).

Have you read Hilde Thunem's research on the types of domain name policy frameworks which exist in various country code top level domains? http://www.norid.no/regelverk/rammer/regelverksmodeller.en.html

Once you have read it, where should .au be on this spectrum, why and what are the benefits to all .au stakeholders?

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;

I supported the removal of prohibition on domain name resale and I support the changes recommended by the Secondary Market Working Group.

This demonstrates that .au policy is not static and can be changed.

Well done Ned, George & Brett.

My experience is that constructive conversation with .au stakeholders and auDA will lead to positive change. However, auDA bashing will just lead to frustration. It's your choice which path you wish to follow.

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;

.au policy is less restrictive than it used to be. I do hold the view that there should be some policy requirements in .au - this gives .au a point of difference that can be commercially exploited by the domain name industry.

What do other members of this forum think?

Should .au be a free for all (like Erhan suggests) or should there be some policy requirements to keep .au different from other domain name spaces?

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;

I suspect you may feel let down by "the process" because your Minority Panel report did not gain the right level of support. However, you shouldn't stop there - I encourage you to constructively understand the needs of all the .au stakeholders so that you can develop policy changes which meet your policy objectives AND those of the broader .au stakeholders.

Ned's work on the Secondary Market Working Group demonstrates how constructive conversation with auDA can lead to policy change.

The Instra and Hitpro cases are two cases in which auDA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on;

As I said above, if there is a grievance with auDA then there is a formal process to raise issues directly with the board. I will not be making public comments on legal issues associated with auDA.

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.

Am I included on this invitation?

It would be great to meet people from this forum face-to-face (and to show I don't have red horns on my head).

 

[Lemon]

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.

Personally I am all for discussion.

As a Demand Class Board member Josh (and all Demand Class reps) should act on domain registrants behalf (DEMAND CLASS). That is what you are voted for. Last years election was a wake up call to board reps that there are users out here that are not satisfied with the stagnation and lack of support from our reps. Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

While DNTrade may be a "lions den" I would also point out that IMHO it will make or break a candidate as there are now a substantial number of DNTrade members who also are eligible to vote at the auDA election. I am not sure how many auDA candidates participate/lurk on this forum however would strongly urge them to make their opinions heard. And yes they should answer questions and have opinions. Links to "old news" is not acceptable.

My vote is not yet decided, and domain monetization is only one factor in my decision.

Lemon

 

[neddy]

Josh and Erhan - great online debate. This is what we need to see candidates points of view.

I hope other members chime in with some questions. This is your chance.

Now I have a couple of questions for you Josh. Please have a read of this thread: http://www.dntrade.com.au/power-auda-t1524.html?t=1524&highlight=Glady

Glady was a novice to domaining, and he now understands the implications and consequences of registering TM domains. But he had also registered a whole lot of other domains which were affected. He didn't have lots of money to spend on lawyers etc, so he was forced to just give up and effectively lose thousands of dollars.

1. Do you think the "stripping" of all these other domains was fair? e.g. horserugs.com.au; sandstonepavers.com.au

2. I understand there is a better complaints mechanism in place now. But if a similar situation like this occurred again, would you (as a Demand Class director) go in and bat for someone like Glady?

Cheers, Ned

 

[geodomains]

Hi Josh,
Welcome to the forum.
I'd like to bring up what happened to me earlier this year when I was sent an email about an au website I had with WA in the url address and description Title.

Someone had made a complaint about the domain and I was was asked by auda to take down my outbound links to my other websites that were not relevant to Western Australia.
I was gobsmacked to say the least, but was told the outbound links had to match the website or the domain would be PD

Everyone I spoke to could not believe this, do you think this is good protection measures for the au domain space?

I would have thought if I run a website I could have outbound links to sites I own and run.

The links from memory were to Blue Mountains and Great Ocean Road tour sites I own, I was told to remove them and put in WA links.

Thoughts?

Don

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Hi guys

Glad Don highlighted some of the problems people face in the real world.

Josh this is the first time you engaged with the domainer community (just before an election) - I am glad after 10 years that you have chosen to engage.

I need to clarify a few things, firstly you say; Should .au be a free for all (like Erhan suggests) or should there be some policy requirements to keep .au different from other domain name spaces? I have never advocated that .au be a free for all (not sure where you got that from), I have always said that there needs to be a balance between confidence in .au but also the ability of people (like in Don's example) to carry on their business without the threat of losing their domains.

I am happy at anytime to sit down with you to discuss in detail the policy basis of any auDA Policy, it is difficult to provide lengthy detailed responses on a forum. Just give me a call. I have many many examples of people who have been hard done by. As you were on the Names Panel, I raised a number of very serious issues for small business concerning domain name licensing between related entities but these concerns were dismissed by the Board.

Also I am not auDA bashing at all, I am one of the very few people who are trying to hold auDA and its board to account in a constructive way. I have been involved in the policy panels and have made submissions on most of the major ones, so I constructively engage in the process. It is very bad for any organisation not to be asked the hard questions and not to be accountable to its members - how can others get involved on the board when 3 demand class directors have been there for 10 years - no one else gets to make a contribution.

As for the auDA Board engaging, I wrote to the auDA Board last year about governance issues and I did not even have the courtesy of a response. As for accessibility to the board when I asked to attend a board meeting to make submissions on the minority report it was rejected, I cant even get the contact details of board members (except for George who has always been available to listen to members) so that I can raise issues with them - so much for accessibility.

Feel free to contact me directly to discuss these issues....

 

[joshrowe]

Josh this is the first time you engaged with the domainer community (just before an election) - I am glad after 10 years that you have chosen to engage.

If you mean this is the first time I have been in the DNtrade forum (at Ned's invitation) then you're correct.

Otherwise I have talked in other online forums about domaining including:

"Domain Monetisation + .au brand" on 2 Apr 2006
http://www.dotau.org/archive/2006-04/0001.html

"Google to kill Domain Tasting - ICANN response" on 30 Jan 2008
http://www.dotau.org/archive/2008-01/0019.html

Did you make a submission about the original Monetisation Policy when auDA asked for public comment? I couldn't see your name on this list: http://www.auda.org.au/reviews/monetisation-2006/

I need to clarify a few things, firstly you say; Should .au be a free for all (like Erhan suggests) or should there be some policy requirements to keep .au different from other domain name spaces? I have never advocated that .au be a free for all (not sure where you got that from), I have always said that there needs to be a balance between confidence in .au but also the ability of people (like in Don's example) to carry on their business without the threat of losing their domains.

Objective policy is an important thing because it means businesses (domainers included) have clarity about the rules in which they can operate their businesses.

I am happy at anytime to sit down with you to discuss in detail the policy basis of any auDA Policy, it is difficult to provide lengthy detailed responses on a forum. Just give me a call. I have many many examples of people who have been hard done by. As you were on the Names Panel, I raised a number of very serious issues for small business concerning domain name licensing between related entities but these concerns were dismissed by the Board.

Cop out.

A series of gripes with auDA does not equate to a policy position. This goes to my point of "auDA bashing" versus coming to auDA with a policy position. You don't seem to want to do that (at least publicly).

On the Names Panel, you were never specific about your concerns which makes them difficult to act on.

Also I am not auDA bashing at all, I am one of the very few people who are trying to hold auDA and its board to account in a constructive way. I have been involved in the policy panels and have made submissions on most of the major ones, so I constructively engage in the process.

Fantastic, keep it up - the engagement & being constructive! It will yield results.

It is very bad for any organisation not to be asked the hard questions and not to be accountable to its members - how can others get involved on the board when 3 demand class directors have been there for 10 years - no one else gets to make a contribution.

I agree that auDA should be challenged. I just propose that it be done in a constructive way.

I didn't vote myself onto to the board, the auDA members did, your gripe should be with them!

As for the auDA Board engaging, I wrote to the auDA Board last year about governance issues and I did not even have the courtesy of a response.

That's the first time you have told me that. Please shoot me the details (privately if you wish) and I'll find out why there was no response provided.

As for accessibility to the board when I asked to attend a board meeting to make submissions on the minority report it was rejected, I cant even get the contact details of board members (except for George who has always been available to listen to members) so that I can raise issues with them - so much for accessibility.

My email address (which is easy to find via Google) is josh@email.nu

I reckon with some further Googling, it wouldn't be too difficult to get the email addresses for the other board members.

Feel free to contact me directly to discuss these issues....

I would prefer to have the discussion here in a publicly accountable open forum.

I note that you have failed to answer most of the direct questions I have asked above, despite that fact I have spent time responding to each of your questions openly and honestly.

I assume from your non-response I'm not invited to the networking event?

If so, I'm more than happy to do a coffee with anyone from this forum (auDA members or not). I'm CBD based, just shoot me a private message. I promise not to wear the red horns.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I don't intend to play games, but I am happy to discuss and debate policy. I know that we will have to agree to disagree.

With respect the policy basis argument you can find a link to the minority report which was coauthored by David Lye, Simon Johnson and myself: http://www.auda.org.au/document.php?documentid=1319

In terms of monetisation, our report outlines the flawed policy logic and practical problems with the policy which was not addressed by the board. I won't comment publically on what happens in the Names Policy Panel, as you are aware it is a confidential forum in terms of what is said, however, my position is very clear to all DNTrade members.

As for the lack of response from the Board I raised this with you personally at the office of Maddocks after one of our Panel Meetings.

See you at the AGM, unless you are prepared to meet face to face before hand.

 

[Honan]

What do other members of this forum think?

Did the first monetisation policy:
1. Give more certainty over the previous policy (silent on the legitimate business model of domain monetisation),
2. make things worse or
3. make no difference at all ?

Hi Josh
Thanks for asking what we think
I think the monetisation policy is web site censorship
I think it is interesting that while defending the restrictive policies of AUDA, you have asked to be contacted through a domain issued by Niue, a pacific island country.
Regards
Joe

 

[joshrowe]

Hi Josh
Thanks for asking what we think
I think the monetisation policy is web site censorship

Do you have any suggestions on how auDA could improve the policy whilst still meeting the overall policy objectives (see below) and not "breaking" the close and substantial rule?

Here is the feedback the auDA board provided on the recent minority report regarding domain monetisation (which Erhan co-authored).

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.

from: http://www.auda.org.au/2007npp/2007nnp-10042007/

...

The Panel identified the following policy objectives for the .au domain (in no particular order):

• Australian identity – registrants must have an association or nexus with Australia.
• Usability – an effective 2LD hierarchy, easy to navigate, simple to understand, not confusing, meets user needs.
• Integrity – low risk of cybersquatting, scams and other misuse, reduced conflicts and disputes, protection for rights holders, consistency with other regulatory regimes.
• Economic benefits – cost effective, attractive for Australian business, efficient reuse of domain names, high domain penetration rates, supporting the Australian online economy.

...

I think it is interesting that while defending the restrictive policies of AUDA, you have asked to be contacted through a domain issued by Niue, a pacific island country.
Regards
Joe

I registered the "email.nu" domain name back in 1997 when .au policy was incredibly restrictive.

It's not the only non-.au domain name I have registered and I also have a portfolio of .au domain names. I have sold some of my domain names for profit.

Does that make me a domainer?

You can also get me on josh@josh.com.au for a domain name Made in Australia

 

[James]

Hi Josh,

I have had a look over your thesis and added you to LinkedIn.

I look forward to reading more from you, would also be interesting to hear some insight into Aus Post.

Kind Regards,

James.

 

[joshrowe]

Hi Josh,

I have had a look over your thesis and added you to LinkedIn.

I look forward to reading more from you, would also be interesting to hear some insight into Aus Post.

Kind Regards,

James.

Thanks for having me.

For those who don't want to wade through my 35k word thesis, there is also a 18 page PowerPoint summary: http://domainusability.com/

It is an exciting time to be working at Australia Post with an incredibly passionate CEO and a strong digital strategy; http://auspost.com.au/about-us/future-ready-australia-posts-business-renewal-program.html

If anyone else wants to connect up on LinkedIn, I'm over here: http://au.linkedin.com/in/joshrowe

 

[Honan]

Do you have any suggestions on how auDA could improve the policy whilst still meeting the overall policy objectives (see below) and not "breaking" the close and substantial rule?

Yes, I do
The close and substantial rule should relate to the nature of the registrants' Australian business
Therefore if the registrants' business is domain monetisation, then no further restrictions need apply, providing the domain name is monetized.
Restricting the method of monetisation to only methods that relate to the words in the domain name is simply not required.

Any issues with "cybersquatting, cybersquatting, scams and other misuse, conflicts and disputes, protection for rights holders, consistency with other regulatory regimes" are not the sole responsibility of businesses who monetize domain names.
Find some other way to fight those issues

Thank you to Josh for contributing to DN trade
However I have spent too much of my time on this already and do not wish to continue this debate

I fully support the findings of the referred monority panel and hope all eligible DNtrade members will vote for Simon and Erhan in the coming election

 

[joshrowe]

I fully support the findings of the referred monority panel and hope all eligible DNtrade members will vote for Simon and Erhan in the coming election

The minority report did not receive support from both the Names Policy Panel (representative of the industry) and the auDA board.

I suggest that in order to have another crack at getting changes to the monetisation policy, the minority report content will require re-work and consultation with the broader industry.

Getting Erhan and Simon on the board will not mean the policy gets approved.

In fact, the best place to influence .au policy changes are on the policy review panels (as Ned has already demonstrated).

 

[neddy]

Josh, thank you for engaging with us, and being prepared to debate your views.

Whilst there are not a lot of members asking questions at the moment, you can be guaranteed that many of them are reading this thread. 1167 views so far.

Once again, the purpose of asking board candidates (like yourself) to express their beliefs, platform and agenda here on DNT is so we as individuals can decide
who best to vote for.

So far, there are a few issues that have been raised that I don't think have been answered as yet.

Where do you stand on these?

1. Don's post about over-regulation concerning his websites and outbound links: http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections-t3630.html?p=25265#post25265

2. My post about Glady - and how he was audited and lost many domains: http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections-t3630.html?p=25264#post25264

3. Domain monetization. You did say (in response to FPR) that you were going to post your views on this over the weekend. Now I know that you have debated
this, but are you still able please to give us a concise statement as to where you stand on this issue moving forward? Are you happy with it in its current format?

Many thanks, Ned (Admin)

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Just a quick thanks to Joe for his support, and for the flood of emails in support I received over the weekend! Great to see that you have all swung into action.

I appreciate your support - and look forward to seeing you at our function on 5 October 2011 - you can RSVP here: http://domainers.eventbrite.com/

 

[Simon Johnson]

I have been away on holidays for awhile and have come back to see this thread. It's interesting to note that just weeks before an election, Josh (an auDA Board member) appears on this forum!

Why are you really here Josh? Perhaps auDA is concerned about the huge backlash by its members?

I suspect you may feel let down by "the process" because your Minority Panel report did not gain the right level of support.

The fact is, YOU had a chance to vote in favour of domain monetization, and you voted AGAINST the Minority Report, created by David Lye, Erhan and myself.

Getting Erhan and Simon on the board will not mean the policy gets approved.

It seems that you are worried about me getting elected to the Board? Is auDA concerned that someone outside the revolving door at the "boys club" will be elected to the Board? Heaven forbid that auDA members elect someone who knows something about domain monetization and has some real world experience!

I fully support the findings of the referred monority panel and hope all eligible DNtrade members will vote for Simon and Erhan in the coming election

Joe - Thanks for voicing your support.

The fact is domainers are not going to fall for these parlour tricks - especially just weeks away from an election.

Guys, I look forward to your continued support. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me directly.

 

[neddy]

I have been away on holidays for awhile and have come back to see this thread. It's interesting to note that just weeks before an election, Josh (an auDA Board member) appears on this forum!

Why are you really here Josh? Perhaps auDA is concerned about the huge backlash by its members?

Simon, as you know, I invited you a couple of weeks ago to provide an article for DNT as to "why you are standing for election at auDA".

I know you said you would do one for us, and you were just waiting for auDA to confirm your application and announce the candidates. So we look forward to it.

As far as Josh is concerned, I say again that I invited him to participate. I have also invited other candidates to join and give us their reasons as to why we
should vote for them. I think it is really important to hear from all people on all sides - plus it being a fair and reasonable thing to do.

Cheers, Ned (Admin)

 

[Simon Johnson]

I'm afraid I have to admit partial failure in my mission to get someone from auDA to interact with us on this forum in regards to any queries on policy.

... Today I was informed by email that they decline to do so. They outlined a number of reasons - most of which I believe were a "cop out".

Ned: I'm aware of your invitations.

The facts are that auDA has repeatedly declined all your invitations to participate on DNTrade (see above thread). Now all of a sudden, out of nowhere comes Josh - just weeks prior to an election.

 

[neddy]

Ned: I'm aware of your invitations.

The facts are that auDA has repeatedly declined all your invitations to participate on DNTrade (see above thread). Now all of a sudden, out of nowhere comes Josh - just weeks prior to an election.

Simon, if you're going to quote me, please make sure you do so in the correct context; and that you report accurately what I say.

I did say that initially, but then I also made a subsequent post which was an apology and clarification of the earlier post which you have quoted.

My post was about someone from auDA (as in Jo Lim the Chief Policy Officer) possibly contributing to DN Trade to answer questions about policy. Not Josh Rowe or any other Director.

Here is an excerpt:

In my original post above, I said that I believed auDA had "copped out" by not agreeing to participate in an "Ask auDA" forum here on DN Trade.

Whilst I am extremely disappointed that auDA didn't want to participate here on DNT, I do now understand the reasons why it may be difficult for
them to do so e.g. being seen to favour or endorse DN Trade etc.

So I publicly apologise to Jo Lim from auDA for the "cop out" remark. It certainly wasn't personal. I have always got on well with her, as I have with
Vanessa and the other staff.

Having said that, I do not resile from my pleas for auDA to engage with the domaining community. We genuinely want to work with you to
better understand policy and thus do the right thing - and not live in fear of losing domains because of "interpretation of policy".

You can read it here in full: http://www.dntrade.com.au/ask-auda-t2713.html?p=18226&highlight=apology+clarification#post18226


Approaching all candidates to participate in an election forum on DNT is a fair and reasonable thing to do imho. (Please bear in mind I have only been in the Admin seat on DNT for 6 months!).

The fact that Josh Rowe has now chosen to engage is great. That doesn't mean to say that I'm endorsing him! But I am very happy to hear what his views are. And the other candidates. That is democracy. By hearing everyone's views - and be able to debate and challenge them - is surely a good thing?

My main overriding concern is that we have Directors at auDA that support and engage with domainers. I am a full-time domainer myself, so it's important to me that the people I vote for are going to look after my interests in a fair and transparent way.

I believe there should be a conduit and dialogue between auDA and domainers. And I will always pursue that end.

So let's hear what everyone has to say, and then you can make your own minds up.

 

[payattention]

I respect Josh for coming here and speaking his opinion but I can't help but feel an "out with the old, in with the new" is much needed.