auDA Board Elections

[DomainNames]

I'm a demand class member and will be voting in this year's election.

I own a decent number of domains and derive the majority of my income from online activities, which include developed .au domains.

I've never had any run-ins with auDA over my domains, I've never received any legal threats over my domains, and I've never had any other issues that have caused problems.

I've sold a handful of .au domains, however I've never had the need to sell one within the first six months. I take the time to develop all of my domains properly, so I've never lived with the fear that I may lose any domains due to being outside of the monetisation policy. Trademarks and misspellings I avoid.

I don't care if certain policy changes may increase the value of our domains, because to be honest I don't want prices to get any higher right now. That may sound crazy, but I'm an accumulator rather than a seller. If domain values halved tomorrow I'd be a happy man, because I have no need or desire to sell any of my domains, but a hunger to buy more quality domains.

I'm sure I'm not the only demand class member who fits a similar profile.

With that in mind, I'm wondering what benefits the candidates think they can offer my business, and why I should vote for them...?

You must be very lucky! The fact is many AUDA policies have been changed over the years and more need changing.... You have been lucky to not have suffered like many have. Examples of old AUDA policy include:

1. Only 1 domain name allowed per legal entity ( must be a registered company business trademark etc)

2. No domain monetisation allowed

3. No Sale of domain names allowed ( you had to sell the trademark or business which included the domain name license)

4. Policy delete with little or no consultation or fair process to the owner

etc etc.

The fact is AUDA's overly restrictive rules and red tape have been the most restrictive of nearly every other country on earth and its slowed down the growth of online business and free enterprise. They also have at times been very harsh on people who own domain names rightfully in favour of major law firms or major companies. ...

A Better .com.au and the more needed changes need good solid representation. Voting for Erhan and some others running from this board seems to be the best bet for many on this forum and possibly the great good of the industry.

For a good history lesson on the .com.au name space and how AUDA has progressed go here http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.auda.org.au Auda only came into existence in 1999. Many people here had .com.au domain names before they even existed! http://web.archive.org/web/19991128161059/http://auda.org.au/ Interesting to see the AUDA CEO position was for a 2 year contract initially! Maybe its time this was re- advertised and opened up to new candidates also http://web.archive.org/web/20000519175328/http://www.auda.org.au/audaceo.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20000817053822/http://www.auda.org.au/ceo-advert.html Period: 2 year contract; performance review after first 6 months
and yearly thereafter; contract renewable subject to satisfactory performance and ongoing business

 

[David Goldstein]

Hi all,

Domain Names is right in that auDA's policies were initially overly restrictive, and there are arguments for and against this. At the time. But things have moved on and it is interesting to compare .AU with other ccTLDS. You only have to look over the ditch at .NZ and while there fewer people and less demand, they have much less restrictive policies and no problems.

There are several policies that were considered during the recent Names Policy Panel that would have eased many restrictions, but, there was almost silence from other panel members or even outright hostility to changes I considered would benefit .AU.

Registrations at the second level is an interesting one. There was opposition to this from submissions to the panel and on the panel. But managed appropriately with sunrise and landrush periods, I don't see any problems. Indeed when looking at other ccTLDs, it is something that registrants prefer. In Austria some years ago they opened up registrations at the second level and now around 97% of registrations are at the second level with third level registrations virtually ignored.

And why do businesses such as Telstra and ANZ, among many others, use .COM as their preferred domain names? I don't know, but one would have to suspect that the length of the domain must have something to do with it. Where I last worked, when I worked for other people, the marketing person at the time was inclined to go for the .ORG domain name for the organisation precisely because it was shorter. I believe that they use the .ORG as their default domain and they are an Australia-only not-for-profit. Again, why?

Towards the end of the Names Policy Panel process there were a few waiverers, but I was largely in a minority of one pursuing some of the policies I outlined in my introduction and on this thread.

Of course, there is an elephant in the room too, and if the government decides it is against auDA's management of .AU they can take this role away (OK, that's a simplification, but it's not impossible) so changes to auDA policies have to consider government views.

Cheers
David

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Firstly a thank you to DomainNames and the emails I support I have received.

There is in fact a lot of reform that needs to take place at auDA, these fall into 2 categories: (1) policy reform - for example domain monetisation and domain leasing (both of these are very big issues which have a very real impact on domainers but also business more broadly); and (2) governance reform - for example more accountability and transparency, how panels are selected, and other constitutional reforms.

We often hear about how auDA has to keep the government happy, this is overstated. The government does not determine auDA Policy, if it wanted to it would have rolled auDA into the ACMA and issued determinations and other policy. Both the current and past governments have accepted the structure for managing the .au name space.

The real obstacle to reform is a board that hasn't in effect changed since auDA's inception, at least in the demand class. Same people, same stale ideas. It is a positive thing to have a change and bring in new ideas and experience, every organisation can benefit from this, in particular auDA.

 

[Lemon]

Hi all,

Registrations at the second level is an interesting one. There was opposition to this from submissions to the panel and on the panel. But managed appropriately with sunrise and landrush periods, I don't see any problems. Indeed when looking at other ccTLDs, it is something that registrants prefer. In Austria some years ago they opened up registrations at the second level and now around 97% of registrations are at the second level with third level registrations virtually ignored.

Hi David,

My situation being similar to that of "One" I have great concerns about registrations on the second level. I have spent a large amount of money and time developing and marketing my brands online. I would be extremely agitated to find that all the effort was wasted if I was able to secure my domain under the second level.

Would you say that the release of the geographical domains was "managed appropriately" as the majority of domains were secured by a handful of individuals.

I participated in the original generic auction and secured some decent domains and developed them. Being generic how do you propose that I would be able to secure these under second level? When the .eu domains were released they had the usual sunrise and landrush periods however it seems that larger companies with the funds find this no barrier to securing more valuable assets as they have the ability to register trademarks and companies at will in order to comply with sunrise criteria.

Can you explain why the UK still uses .co.uk quite successfully with a population of 60 million and an open domain policy. I would have thought that the Australian system would be more parallel to the UK.

Lemon

 

[David Goldstein]

Erhan,

You are partly right. I don't think anyone has said the government exerts undue influence on auDA, and all parties involved would be aware that any government involvement would be controversial given the importance the DNS plays in everyday life.

I agree that there are areas of auDA that need changing, and I have suggested some of these I consider important. It is also true that the board cannot act without recommendations from policy panels in many areas.

It is important that given the debate going on here that people following it are aware of the limits of the board. And it is important that all groups using domain names are represented.

On another issue, I wonder if people here are aware that before the last policy panel there was nowhere in .AU that I or you could register a domain name such as, and the example I often used was, myfavouritecafes.com.au. A slight change was made following the panel and now domains such as this can be registered in id.au, but this is going to prove to be ineffective.

People want to use com.au to register domain names and id.au will prove to be ineffective, but at least it is a move on the right path. It is another reason why I consider the close and substantial rule has had its day and why I would like to see it reformed or ended.

Cheers
David

 

[David Goldstein]

Lemon,

On registrations at the second level there are many options for managing this. A scenario I have used about allowing this is as follows:
* existing .AU registrants would be allowed to apply for their domain name at the second level for at least net.au and com.au - it's debatable whether you would allow registrants of other second level domains to apply, but this is a discussion that would be had
* where there are multiple applications, there are a number of scenarios on how to deal with this, but an auction would be one option with the successful applicant being the highest bidder
* I would support a period where registrants could have both name.au and name.com.au for a period, maybe five years, at the end of which the registrant could then choose whether to choose one or the other or both
* for existing 2LDs you could then debate what to do - maybe even wind back existing registrations rules to what they previously were, grandfathering existing registrations, to make these appealing to small businesses.

That's one option and others would have other views. But allowing a timeframe where registrants could have both name.au and name.com.au together for no extra cost would allow you to not lose the value you have built up in the domain names you already have.

Your comments about .EU are not relevant though, as that was a new TLD. You would be better off comparing it to existing ccTLDs that have gone from third level registrations only to allowing second level registrations. Korea, Japan, Austria, China and others have all done this.

I'm not sure why you say .UK is more comparable to .AU. All ccTLDs are relevant. Of the top six ccTLDs, I think only .UK has third level registrations. And why do ccTLDs move to allow registrations at the second level, and not, even in Germany, the largest ccTLD by far, doesn't the registry create 2LDs for third level registrations?

Another issues to consider is what will happen to your portfolio of domains if TLDs such as .SYDNEY or .MELBOURNE, or equivalents, are introduced? Shorter domains will, I would have thought, been of benefit to you.

Cheers
David

 

[DomainNames]

Firstly a thank you to DomainNames and the emails I support I have received.

There is in fact a lot of reform that needs to take place at auDA, these fall into 2 categories: (1) policy reform - for example domain monetisation and domain leasing (both of these are very big issues which have a very real impact on domainers but also business more broadly); and (2) governance reform - for example more accountability and transparency, how panels are selected, and other constitutional reforms.

We often hear about how auDA has to keep the government happy, this is overstated. The government does not determine auDA Policy, if it wanted to it would have rolled auDA into the ACMA and issued determinations and other policy. Both the current and past governments have accepted the structure for managing the .au name space.

The real obstacle to reform is a board that hasn't in effect changed since auDA's inception, at least in the demand class. Same people, same stale ideas. It is a positive thing to have a change and bring in new ideas and experience, every organisation can benefit from this, in particular auDA.

This is 100% correct. AUDA needs new blood.. it was not supposed to be a lifelong job or position for any. It is a NON PROFIT whose job is to serve the industry not dictate to it with outdated views and in many cases wrong views ( proven by changes later in policy they admit where wrong)

AUDA has to justify its doing its job properly to retain its authority given to it by the government.. to date they have not in many cases done this.

Erhan we need you and more like you but its obvious some will never give up their roles or admit being wrong in their old policy decisions

.co.nz, .co.uk, .com all work very well with less rules, red tape etc and no overreaching body such as AUDA. More changes are needed....

Focus needs to be on reducing AUDA costs, reducing their expenditure, reducing the outdated policies and red tape to levels that match other countries worldwide.

If you own a .com name you can largely do what you want with it. Buy it sell it, park it whatever. This is what domain names are about and always has been worldwide ( except in australia it seems until recently due to the efforts of many on this board and others)

getting rid of the "auda foundation" might help reduce some AUDA costs and expenditure and less policies mean they need less staff to waste time dealing with policy issues and problems they largely created themselves

 

[David Goldstein]

Domain Names,

You might claim the ccTLDs you mention work well already, but why is it that in New Zealand they conducted a survey recently that found registrants would prefer name.nz registrations and in every ccTLD that moves to allow registrations at the second level, the third level registrations are mostly ignored and registrants clamour for second level registrations?

I agree less regulation is beneficial, but you are advocating keeping regulations that suit you personally. And not with the wider industry in mind.

As for the auDA Foundation, the money for this came from the sell-off of geographic names from memory and I am not aware, although I could be corrected, of any money being used from auDA itself. Further, while you can argue about the aims of the foundation, in this age where philanthropic endeavours are encouraged, it should be applauded that auDA is doing something in this area.

David

 

[Shane]

I do like the idea of second level domains, but like most people on DNtrade I'm very fearful that big business could use their muscle and the money to grab the .au versions of my com.au domains that I've spent good money on purchasing and developing.

The idea of an auction between the existing com.au and net.au holders isn't particularly appealing either. Maybe I should start registering the net.au versions of all my names! Hmmm, more money going to auDA in that case...

I don't have the answer, but I think an option worth considering would be for auDA to 'gift' the .au names to all existing com.au holders. That would take away the fear factor and gain a bit of goodwill for auDA, and they'd still get all the extra renewal fees two years down the track anyway.

 

[DomainNames]

Domain Names,

You might claim the ccTLDs you mention work well already, but why is it that in New Zealand they conducted a survey recently that found registrants would prefer name.nz registrations and in every ccTLD that moves to allow registrations at the second level, the third level registrations are mostly ignored and registrants clamour for second level registrations?

I agree less regulation is beneficial, but you are advocating keeping regulations that suit you personally. And not with the wider industry in mind.

As for the auDA Foundation, the money for this came from the sell-off of geographic names from memory and I am not aware, although I could be corrected, of any money being used from auDA itself. Further, while you can argue about the aims of the foundation, in this age where philanthropic endeavours are encouraged, it should be applauded that auDA is doing something in this area.

David

Sorry David but thats now where the AUDA foundation money comes from and this is why My vote will be for Erhan. Waste ..even with the best of intentions should never be applauded. Reading the list of people who have been given this money does not highlight the benefits of such a foundation. philanthropy with anothers money is fairly easy to do and might not be worthy of praise!

Its sometimes got winners who are worthy but most years is nothing short of waste of money whereby people can gain access to free money... often universtities use these sort of thing to fatten up their budgets

Is this really worthy?? "Connecting-2-Generations: - This research proposal aims to further examine the social impact of the Internet by investigating its use by people from two generations. " really????

http://audafoundation.org.au/grant-recipients/2011-grant-recipients Look back over past years.. many might be worthy causes but many are not and shouldnt this sort of free grant money come from the Government and not a " not for profit". There are government websites such as http://www.grantslink.gov.au/ devoted to giving away the same sorts of grants. its not AUDA's job even though yes at times some are worthy of free money.

Looking at AUDA budgets It appears expenditure exceeds income at AUDA. http://www.auda.org.au/about/budget/

 

[David Goldstein]

One: On the possibility of allowing second level registrations, which may never happen too, in my scenario, if there was only one application from an existing registrant (I would propose that one could only register identical names already registered in their application for a second level domain), then they would get the domain. I imagine there would be few cases that would go to auction. Without any detailed research, one example would most likely be "macquarie".

DomainNames: The idea of the auDA Foundation is fine. What it funds should be debated and maybe even the guidelines amended. As one who has worked in philanthropy it is important that business gives. But I agree that while some of the grants are questionable, a quick scroll through the 2011 recipients seem like the projects are sound. One example is not indicative of whether it is good or bad. Are you saying funding for projects for the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children and Epilepsy Action are not warranted?

And you have a poor understanding of philanthropy - governments most definitely do not fund the majority of budgets for the vast majority of not for profits. They rely on funding from a wide variety of sources, government being just one.

 

[DomainNames]

One: On the possibility of allowing second level registrations, which may never happen too, in my scenario, if there was only one application from an existing registrant (I would propose that one could only register identical names already registered in their application for a second level domain), then they would get the domain. I imagine there would be few cases that would go to auction. Without any detailed research, one example would most likely be "macquarie".

DomainNames: The idea of the auDA Foundation is fine. What it funds should be debated and maybe even the guidelines amended. As one who has worked in philanthropy it is important that business gives. But I agree that while some of the grants are questionable, a quick scroll through the 2011 recipients seem like the projects are sound. One example is not indicative of whether it is good or bad. Are you saying funding for projects for the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children and Epilepsy Action are not warranted?

And you have a poor understanding of philanthropy - governments most definitely do not fund the majority of budgets for the vast majority of not for profits. They rely on funding from a wide variety of sources, government being just one.

This is why we need to vote for Erhan people! David Is it AUDA's job to fund the deaf and Blind children? Its easy to pull out a few just causes but with AUDA expenditure exceeding their income they cant keep doing it. This is not why AUDA was founded. Their job is to run the .au namespace.

The fact is its not AUDA's job and they need to focus on doing their job better, minimise their expenditure.
____________________________________________

Thanks anyway for spelling out your thoughts on AUDA's role etc so people here can assess if they want to vote for you. Its good to get candidates such as yours before the election even though many candidates seem to have only just joined this forum at the last minute ( with minimal other posts... looks like you have about 9 forum posts all up? ) to try and get some votes.
_______________________________________________________

http://www.auda.org.au/about/about-overview/
About auDA

.au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) is the policy authority and industry self-regulatory body for the .au domain space.

Role of auDA

auDA performs the following functions:
•develop and implement domain name policy
•license 2LD registry operators
•accredit and license registrars
•implement consumer safeguards
•facilitate .au Dispute Resolution Policy
•represent .au at ICANN and other international fora.

See Powerpoint Presentation from the auDA Information Seminars held around the country during May 2002.

History of auDA

The .au domain space is a vital national resource, and in 1999, as the culmination of efforts since 1995, auDA was formed to manage it.

In December 2000, the Australian Government formally endorsed auDA as the appropriate body to administer the .au domain space. The Government holds reserve powers in relation to domain names under the Telecommunications Act 1997.

In October 2001, ICANN recognised auDA as the suitable operator for .au under a Sponsorship Agreement.

 

[David Goldstein]

Domain Names,

It is not auDA's job to fund any one particular cause. But in these days where governments actually encourage business to give, there are good reasons for auDA to be philanthropic. Going by your reasoning it is nobody's job to be philanthropic. It most certainly isn't something written down for business in their business case.

I have no idea why you think it is relevant about whether I give or not. It most definitely is not relevant.

 

[DomainNames]

candidate David, Thanks anyway for spelling out your thoughts on AUDA's role etc so people here can assess if they want to vote for you. Its good to get candidates views such as yours before the election even though many candidates seem to have only just joined this forum at the last minute ( with minimal other posts... looks like you have about 9 forum posts all up? ) to try and get some votes.

Also you state in your candidate introduction you started with domain names in 2000? Your a few years behind many on this forum so perhaps your knowledge is a bit AUDA policy biased and not global!

Many here remember the start of .com.au in Australia.. the Melbourne IT monopoly, $140 domain names..... All Pre AUDA! AUDA has been good but they have room for improvement. New Blood and new board members are needed.

The fact is anyone can buy a .com name. Its always been cheaper, with less red tape and problems. Why AUDA has kept many bad policies is a question that needs reviewing and changing.

Its a pity you where not more active on the board in the past and a shame you only just joined now to get votes it seems from your initial post only a week or so ago. Many here may have voted for you if we knew more about you and what you could offer as a board member if voted in this next election. It does not seem genuine for you to just join now when you probably knew this forum existed previously and seemingly chose not to be apart of it before? ( Apparently this is the number one forum discussing .com.au domains names... any good "active" candidate should have been a member previously IMO.. some may have not joined as they are ...old policy... anti domainer .. anti progress ... anti change types etc )

 

[Lemon]

To all auDA Board Candidates.

I would like to hear your stance on the possibility of allowing second level registrations within the .au namespace (for or against). Especially with regard to current .com.au owners like me as this may sway my vote. Personally I am not opposed to the idea however I feel the negatives outweigh the positives.


Lemon

 

[Lemon]

It is another reason why I consider the close and substantial rule has had its day and why I would like to see it reformed or ended.

David: I agree. I see no benefit in the close and substantial rule to the general public. IMHO the only beneficiaries are domainers, who can claim any domain is related to their business as monetisation is a legitimate business model. I would like to see it scrapped totally with no limitations on the use of a domain. Current registration requirements (Australian business etc) should remain in place and work well.

On a more controversial point I would have no objection to registration prices being raised.

Lemon

 

[DomainNames]

David: I agree. I see no benefit in the close and substantial rule to the general public. IMHO the only beneficiaries are domainers, who can claim any domain is related to their business as monetisation is a legitimate business model. I would like to see it scrapped totally with no limitations on the use of a domain. Current registration requirements (Australian business etc) should remain in place and work well.

On a more controversial point I would have no objection to registration prices being raised.

Lemon

Registration prices being raised?? Are you joking or running a registrar? if you want to be ripped off and pay higher registration prices you can already just go here and look http://www.dntrade.com.au/domain-registrars.php

Feel free to blow your money with someone like Melbourne IT for the same things offered at cheaper registrars! MelbourneIT $140.00 verses www.VentraIp.com.au at $19.95 !

Registrar Name .com.au .net.au .org.au .id.au .asn.au Ownership Transfer Automated COR
NameScout $27.44 $27.44 $19.44 $24.48 $19.44 -
Discount Domain Name Services $65.00 $65.00 $20.00 $39.00 $20.00 $120.00* -
GoDomains $98.00 $98.00 $22.00 $39.95 $59.00 $165.00* -
SmartyHost $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $149.00 -
Domain Registration Services $127.00 $127.00 $30.00 $60.00 $59.00 -
NetRegistry $44.95 $44.95 $13.75 $29.95 $38.50 $220.00* -
Enetica $69.00 $69.00 $39.00 $49.00 $39.00 $89.00+ Yes
Domain Central $37.95 $37.95 $37.95 $37.95 $37.95 $162.95* -
TPP Internet $99.00 $99.00 $54.00 $49.00 $54.00 -
Westnet Hosting $88.00 $88.00 $35.00 $45.00 $55.00 $45.00+ -
Connect West $99.00 $99.00 $49.00 $49.00 $49.00 -
AussieHQ $59.00 $59.00 $49.00 $49.00 $49.00 -
Planet Domain $55.00 $55.00 $33.00 $41.03 $46.51 $110.00* -
Aust Domains $69.00 $69.00 $36.00 $42.00 $56.00 $220.00+ -
Click n Go $59.00 $59.00 $29.00 $35.00 $29.00 -
Explorer Domains $99.95 $99.95 $44.95 $74.95 $84.95
Instra $118.00 $118.00 $88.00 $88.00 $88.00 -
Anchor $69.00 $69.00 $22.00 $49.00 $69.00 -
Web Access $39.60 $39.60 $24.00 $24.00 $24.00 -
IntaServe $27.95 $27.95 $19.00 $25.00 $33.00 -
Melbourne IT $140.00 $140.00 $88.00 $99.00 -
Cheaper Domains $35.00 $35.00 $20.00 $28.00 $14.00 -
Ventra IP $19.95 $19.95 $9.35 $14.85 $9.35 $39.95* -
Drop $99.95 $99.95 N/A N/A N/A $49.95 Yes
Zip Hosting $20.96 $20.96 $13.76 $17.96 $10.00 -

* This price indicates that the Transfer Fee INCLUDES a 2 year registration period.
+ This price indicates that the Transfer Fee REQUIRES a 2 year registration.
GREEN Prices indicate the lowest price for that top level domain.

 

[Lemon]

DomainNames

If you have been in the domain business for so long you should know that you never pay retail prices.

The fact is that a decent domain can cost 1000's of dollars in fact an average domain costs several hundreds. Why? because they have been registered by domainers. Think of a name, see if its registered, most are, then negotiate a purchase price. It's highly unlikely to be less than $140.

IMO the Australian domain space is overpriced. In some cases its possible to buy a .com for less than what some are asking. This is an indication of the strength of owning a .com.au (David) however prices are high.

Lemon

 

[DomainNames]

DomainNames

If you have been in the domain business for so long you should know that you never pay retail prices.

The fact is that a decent domain can cost 1000's of dollars in fact an average domain costs several hundreds. Why? because they have been registered by domainers. Think of a name, see if its registered, most are, then negotiate a purchase price. It's highly unlikely to be less than $140.

IMO the Australian domain space is overpriced. In some cases its possible to buy a .com for less than what some are asking. This is an indication of the strength of owning a .com.au (David) however prices are high.

Lemon

Are you talking about initial registration fees or aftermarket prices? Prices are market prices for the aftermarket just like realestate. The benefits of an aftermarket such as www.netfleet.com.au is it allows people to buy and sell. prices are not set they are open to the market.

There is a difference between domain name registration fees,domain name registrant transfer fees and domain name aftermarket / resale prices. You said you want higher registration prices "On a more controvrsial point I would have no objection to registration prices being raised." which makes little sense and already exists as your choice to pay more for the same product at various registrars / resellers!

 

[David Goldstein]

I'm not going to enter the debate of whether .AU domains are over- or under-priced, but it's not just gTLD domains that .AU should be compared with but also other comparable ccTLDs.

On second level registrations, it should be noted there has to be several reforms take place to allow this so that it is fair for existing registrants. Unfortunately the debate in .AU when the Names Policy Panel asks about it asks about several options, where a scenario(s) should be outlined so people understand what changes need to take place.

On the prices given by DomainNames, you neglected Asia Registry. They charge $US20 per year for a .AU name, so are probably even cheaper still.

On why people register .AU names over .COM when .COM are cheaper, there are several reasons, some of which are that people and businesses like to register a domain name from their own country, the easier availability of preferred names and probably more.