Grrrrrrrrrr!

[neddy]

If there is one thing that really pees me off with our over regulated Aussie domain space, it is the anonymity that auDA affords to complainants.

We all know that auDA only acts against people on the basis of complaints received (generally). It seems to me to fly in the face of natural justice that they don't have to be named.

I wonder how much complaints would decrease by if it was compulsory that complainants' names were published?

I mean if you're a legitimate complainant (TM holder or similar), you wouldn't have a problem having your name on the record - would you? (If it progresses from auDA to an auDRP the complainant has to be named, so what's the diff?).

A mate of mine (and member here) had a complaint against him last week. Imo he is entitled to hold the name, but some jealous or rejected suitor has made an "anonymous complaint". My friend will win the argument ultimately, but he has to go through all the hoops now.

I'd be interested in other peoples thoughts on this.

Cheers, Ned

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Transparency is very important for these processes, to have an anonymous complaints process seems ridiculous to me.

A lack of transparency (I.e. public accountability of the complainant) makes this process an open target for exploitation.

 

[Data Glasses]

Can this be mentioned at the next auda meeting?

 

[johno69]

I totally agree Ned. If someone is confident enough to put forward a complaint, then surely they can stand by it with their name there.

 

[neddy]

Can this be mentioned at the next auda meeting?

I'm sure it can be - but go get something on the agenda for the next Board Meeting, members need to write in. (They actually accept scanned letters by email!).

I raised "complaints" in general at the last AGM in Sydney (amongst other things), but unfortunately the CEO seemed keen to shut me down as quickly as possible.

However, on a positive note, I must say that Vanessa and her team at auDA generally do a fantastic job of nipping a lot of complaints in the bud. They simply never see the light of day. Thank goodness. (I've said that before on here as well).

It's just the ones that do get through that I'm talking about. As a betting man, I would be prepared to wager the farm that if a complainant knew their name would be published, complaints would fall dramatically. Genuine complainants would not affected, because they would have the courage of their convictions.

Cheers, Ned

 

[neddy]

I totally agree Ned. If someone is confident enough to put forward a complaint, then surely they can stand by it with their name there.

Absolutely agree Paul.

And here's another example for you. It's sad to say that there has actually been a member (or perhaps two) on here that has been an "ambulance chaser". i.e. Looking for reasons to complain so that they can force a domain to be "policy deleted". (Things like outdated registrant details). They've even made posts about it.

Not that that helps them though, because if a domain gets deleted, it goes in the general drop pool.

 

[DomainNames]

I'm sure it can be - but go get something on the agenda for the next Board Meeting, members need to write in. (They actually accept scanned letters by email!).

I raised "complaints" in general at the last AGM in Sydney (amongst other things), but unfortunately the CEO seemed keen to shut me down as quickly as possible.

However, on a positive note, I must say that Vanessa and her team at auDA generally do a fantastic job of nipping a lot of complaints in the bud. They simply never see the light of day. Thank goodness. (I've said that before on here as well).

It's just the ones that do get through that I'm talking about. As a betting man, I would be prepared to wager the farm that if a complainant knew their name would be published, complaints would fall dramatically. Genuine complainants would not affected, because they would have the courage of their convictions.

Cheers, Ned

Many members here attended the AUDA meeting Neddy mentions and it was obvious questions where not welcomed in any way ..Makes you wonder why? I would like to have seen people pull apart the financials also and ask about the huge increase ( rent has doubled etc)

What is needed is the same policy rule as in CANADA which has greatly dropped false complaints. It means the registrant ( if they win) can get $5000 from the complainant which can be used to offset registrants costs in addressing the complaint.

http://bcicac.com/domain-name-disputes/rules-of-procedure/cira-domain-name-dispute-resolution-rules/

g) at the option of the Registrant, state, but without exceeding one thousand (1000) words plus any Schedules, a claim pursuant to paragraph 4.6 of the Policy for costs of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) incurred by the Registrant in preparing for, and filing material in, the Proceeding and provide particulars of the basis for the claim and receipts or other evidence of the costs;

AUDA need to add this to the auda rules ASAP with no further delays

Also needed is the right for a name to be COR'd then the new registrant to use remaining period on the name ( so they dont need to pay for new registration and more auda fees). It seems only AUDA has a rule such as this now when the rest of the world allows a name to be sold and the new registrant to get the remaining registration period with no extra costs or RED TAPE.

 

[FirstPageResults]

Plenty of IT boffins out there spreading misinformation too, which obviously doesn't help

 

[neddy]

DomainNames will like this post.

It's just been reported by Andrew Allemann on Domain Name Wire that a Canadian Court stopped a UDRP from proceeding, and awarded costs.

George Kirikos is a well known and well respected domain investor / businessman from Canada.

Here's the short article - read the comments too.

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/04/0...company-pay-costs-over-wrongful-domain-claim/

 

[findtim]

i'm very late into this thread, but i will do a retro " i agree " with ned about the person should not be able to comlain and stay unknown.

tim

 

[Domainz]

Happened to me & lost the domain.

 

[AnthonyP]

From what I understand of the process auDA general meetings are not the right place to discuss transparency in the eligibility complaints process. One needs to raise a subject like this in the policy review panels. One also needs to gain the support of registrants/participants in the panel NOT auDA to make a change.

Just to be clear I agree on transparency for the auDRP process since the complainant has something to gain but can someone explain to me why one really needs transparency for the eligibility complaints process?

In an eligibility complaint the actual complainant is irrelevant, it is auDA who is enforcing/imposing a rule on you and you need to answer to them. In theory it could be said that auDA is allowing us a huge amount of freedom by not automatically policing the policy and only looking closer if someone points out that there may be an issue.

I think most people actually expect that their details may be made available to the defendant. It is not like the auDA policy states in big bold letters that the service is provided anonymously. In fact I don't think it even assures anonymity at all but since the complainant is irrelevant they gain anonymity by default.

 

[neddy]

From what I understand of the process auDA general meetings are not the right place to discuss transparency in the eligibility complaints process. One needs to raise a subject like this in the policy review panels. One also needs to gain the support of registrants/participants in the panel NOT auDA to make a change.

Just to be clear I agree on transparency for the auDRP process since the complainant has something to gain but can someone explain to me why one really needs transparency for the eligibility complaints process?

In an eligibility complaint the actual complainant is irrelevant, it is auDA who is enforcing/imposing a rule on you and you need to answer to them. In theory it could be said that auDA is allowing us a huge amount of freedom by not automatically policing the policy and only looking closer if someone points out that there may be an issue.

I think most people actually expect that their details may be made available to the defendant. It is not like the auDA policy states in big bold letters that the service is provided anonymously. In fact I don't think it even assures anonymity at all but since the complainant is irrelevant they gain anonymity by default.

Anthony, I agree with you on a lot of things, but respectfully I don't on some of the points you raise here.

I've had the benefit of being involved in a working group and a Panel, and have been to AGM's. I've also had the chance to talk with fellow domainers; auDA staff and Directors.

This is my take on it:

1. AGM's / EGM's are great to raise issues. Generally all Directors are there - as is Jo Lim (Chief Operations and Policy Officer). Members are entitled to ask any questions they want, and everything is minuted. Sure you may get fobbed off, but it's on the record, and easily revisited. Sometimes you get a consensus that a subject is worth being discussed at a panel level.
   
   
2. Get a friend to ring auDA tomorrow and say "that they want to make a complaint about a domain name - but can they do it anonymously?". I've been told that this is a common question of complainants.
   
   
3. Due process is all about transparency - people making an anonymous complaint know the name / company name of the registrant - but it doesn't work in reverse unfortunately. That's all I ask - and I know several Director's feel this way too.
   
   
4. Would it surprise you to know that some "domain owners" are the biggest dobbers? Did you know there are also some "professional complainers" out there who know how the system works? If they had to give their names, can you imagine how complaints would diminish? I can. That's my point.
   
   
5. auDRP is different as I stated. Everything is out in the open as it should be.

Finally, here is an excerpt from auDA Policy: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-03/

Complainants can expect the following from auDA:

• have valid complaints treated as genuine and properly investigated;
  
• have their complaint information remain confidential within auDA;

 

[m8e]

Yes the AU system is one of the most open, there is no anonymous whois, so AUDA should lay all the cards on the table. Ned has raised a very valid issue that needs to be opened up and made public.

 

[neddy]

Did you know there are also some "professional complainers" out there who know how the system works? If they had to give their names, can you imagine how complaints would diminish? I can. That's my point.

There are a lot of people out there who unfortunately don't like domainers (or people that invest in domain names without actually being a domainer).

Forums like Flying Solo having many such complainants. I remember one guy that DavidL and I took on ages ago who took pride in putting in as many complaints as he could because he thought we were all "squatters".

Why should the current system favour a complainant with anonymity protection? It just flies in the face of natural justice that a complaint can be made - and that we do not know who our accuser is; or what they've said.

As I said previously, if someone has a legitimate complaint, then they shouldn't be worried about putting their name to it. IMHO.

---------------------------------

P.S. I reiterate that Vanessa at auDA does do a fantastic job in nipping a lot of complaints in the bud. They simply never see the light of day. Thank goodness.

 

[geodomains]

Totally agree Ned, to many people hiding behind a computer screen making complaints that are just sour grapes or competition related with no justification.

I made a complaint recently about 6 domains being used by an overseas entity that used someone elses ABN without their permission.

Not sure how they registered them, but still I would have had no problems as to my name showing as the one making the complaint.

Don

 

[johno69]

an overseas entity that used someone elses ABN without their permission.

This raises a whole new issue. I regularly register domains for clients using their ABN at their request.

I wonder if there is a way to request a list of domains registered against an ABN to check that nobody is using ours.

Sorry to go off track.

 

[AnthonyP]

[*]AGM's / EGM's are great to raise issues. Generally all Directors are there - as is Jo Lim (Chief Operations and Policy Officer). Members are entitled to ask any questions they want, and everything is minuted. Sure you may get fobbed off, but it's on the record, and easily revisited. Sometimes you get a consensus that a subject is worth being discussed at a panel level.

Great this one should be easy to prove then, can you point me to some minuted comments made at an AGM which resulted in a consensus to discuss a subject at a panel about something which is of interest to domainers and resulted in a real discussion in a panel. If this has worked in the past I'll happily stand up at an AGM and start lobbying auDA. For the record I am very happy to be proven wrong!

From what I've observed this sort of grandstanding at an auDA meeting gets you noticed but it does not help produce change.

I also want to bring you back to my most important point. auDA policy is changed via the panels, auDA implement the recommendations of the panels so having a "big" auDA audience does not help to create change as they don't make changes based primarily on their own opinion.

[*]Get a friend to ring auDA tomorrow and say "that they want to make a complaint about a domain name - but can they do it anonymously?". I've been told that this is a common question of complainants.

I'm not even arguing about it being possible, I am well aware that it is possible BUT it is irrelevant to the process. If you are seen to be breaching auDA policy then it is between you and auDA, the complainant is irrelevant and has in theory nothing to gain in the process.

[*]Due process is all about transparency - people making an anonymous complaint know the name / company name of the registrant - but it doesn't work in reverse unfortunately. That's all I ask - and I know several Director's feel this way too.

Great let these Director's come and talk for themselves, we are closing in on election time they should be keen to back you up. I know that this sounds exciting and very progressive to call for "transparency" but I don't think it is really adding value in this instance since the person doing the dobbing in is irrelevant.

[*]Would it surprise you to know that some "domain owners" are the biggest dobbers? Did you know there are also some "professional complainers" out there who know how the system works? If they had to give their names, can you imagine how complaints would diminish? I can. That's my point.

What would surprise me is if you had information on who the dobbers are since they are supposedly anonymous. I'd love to agree with you and to decrease the amount of time I spend dealing with complaints, but my fall back argument that the person "pointing out the breach" to auDA is irrelevant.

Finally, here is an excerpt from auDA Policy: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-03/

I think you added the "bold" for effect, but lets also look at the complaint form at auDA http://www.auda.org.au/form-complaint-domainname.php

What is does not have on it (in bold or otherwise) is any mention of anonymity BUT it does include the following
"auDA reserves the right not to acknowledge or investigate a complaint that is clearly frivolous, vexatious or abusive, or in auDA's opinion has been brought in bad faith."
I put forward the case that auDA is more interested in protecting us from abusive complaints than it is interested in providing complainants with a platform to try to hurt us.

I know this example is a bit dramatic but here goes with an analogy.

At the police station when you dob someone in about breaking a law you are given the same anonymity (because you are irrelevant). The police then investigate... (this is like an eligibility complaint to auDA) Court case is "Them versus The Government"

You want to sue someone in court, so you grab your lawyers and you head into court, it is "Them versus You" (this is like an auDRP process) and this requires transparency.

 

[AnthonyP]

This raises a whole new issue. I regularly register domains for clients using their ABN at their request.

I wonder if there is a way to request a list of domains registered against an ABN to check that nobody is using ours.

Sorry to go off track.

I've tried to get a list like this in the past and I was advised was not possible.

I'd love to know if auDA or ausRegistry are subject to an equivalent of the Government's freedom of information act, which would allow a registrant to make a formal request for information related to their own ABN (or contact details).

 

[neddy]

Anthony, in simple terms, as General Manager of Netfleet, are you saying that you agree with the ability for people to make anonymous complaints about domain owners
and their right to hold domains (for whatever reason)?

I'd love to know if auDA or ausRegistry are subject to an equivalent of the Government's freedom of information act,

I asked Erhan last week about whether auDA was subject to FOI, but apparently they are not because they are technically a Corporation. It would be great to put in FOI requests
to see who made a complaint.