Transparency

[AnthonyP]

It's pretty easy - just click on the "hammer" and read from bottom to top.

I'll tell you what isn't easy, and that's trying to get "bidding history" with those instructions you posted. I tried it a few different ways, and then gave up. But I am technically challenged.

If and when you have time Anthony, could you please email me the url string I should have ended up with if I was looking at "pawnbrokers"? That way I can see what I did wrong. Much appreciated.

The URL/clientId string changes each time you connect to the auction server, so it is not something I can email you. I could talk you through it over the phone in real time if you want to see it tomorrow.

 

[Ashman]

While on the topic of transparency, I find it extremely troubling to see that the founding Director of Netfleet is also the founding Director of Publishing Australia - a domain investment company owning about 3000 Australian domains.

Back in 2009 a complaint was lodged with auDA regarding the acquisition of domain names by registrars and their related entities, which involved Netfleet and the directors of Publishing Australia, but the complaint was dismissed after the admission of a mistake was made by Netfleet.

http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-30102009/

After the recent events regarding Netfleet allegedly bidding against their core customer base, I wonder what is really going on behind the scenes regarding 'Registrars' and 'Related Entities' when it comes to buying dropping domain names.

There are too many conflicts of interests IMO to ever be a level playing field.

 

[neddy]

While on the topic of transparency, I find it extremely troubling to see that the founding Director of Netfleet is also the founding Director of Publishing Australia - a domain investment company owning about 3000 Australian domains.

auDA does have "related entity" rules as you have mentioned Ashman, but I believe all parties involved in Netfleet have taken the necessary steps to adhere to these.

I must also defend David and Mark Lye here.

They have turned their passion for domain names into a business (Netfleet). They have put an incredible amount of effort and dollars into it over the years, and initially they did so for little reward.

They then convinced NetRegistry of the merits of teaming up - and I don't think NR would have entered into that lightly.

Preachers open churches; mechanics open garages; financial planners / accountants create all sorts of financial services. You get my drift. I think it is perfectly natural for them to expand Netfleet to what it is today. Why should they not be allowed to continue to own domain names (either personally or in another entity)? They obviously have to be extra cautious about conflict of interest though.

Even though I have had a couple of vigorous stoushes with them over transparency / conflict of interst in past years (and recent times!), there have certainly been many more things to praise them about in the same period of time. And I say that sincerely.

In simple terms, where would any of us be without Netfleet?

They also recruited Anthony to join Netfleet - and he is now General Manager. Whilst I have been critical of some of his recent marketing initiatives (and his sensitivity to criticism), I believe he is a person of integrity.

Having said that, I will still be amongst the first to agitate when I believe they are not providing a level playing field or transparency in their platform. Or when I think they have a conflict of interest. Or when I believe they could do something better. As I have done in recent times - and as I did when I owned this forum.

I'd prefer to help them grow strong and healthy than chop them down.

 

[Ashman]

auDA does have "related entity" rules as you have mentioned Ashman, but I believe all parties involved in Netfleet have taken the necessary steps to adhere to these.

That is hardly reassuring to me given that auDA has proved very forgiving of errant behaviour by Australian domain name registrars in the past.

 

[Ashman]

I must also defend David and Mark Lye here.

They have turned their passion for domain names into a business (Netfleet). They have put an incredible amount of effort and dollars into it over the years, and initially they did so for little reward.

They then convinced NetRegistry of the merits of teaming up - and I don't think NR would have entered into that lightly.

I think it is perfectly natural for them to expand Netfleet to what it is today. Why should they not be allowed to continue to own domain names (either personally or in another entity)? They obviously have to be extra cautious about conflict of interest though.

In simple terms, where would any of us be without Netfleet?

I also think this debate / discussion about Netfleet is a matter of perspective, having two sides being the right and the left.

I am all for Australian companies doing well and recognising and appreciating success stories, however when it comes to the drops I'm on the left.

I truly believe that the public interest is paramount rather than promoting the agendas of special interest groups and related parties.

 

[Ashman]

auDA constitution states:

"Taking the view that the Internet Domain Name System is a public asset, and that the .au ccTLD is under the sovereign control of the Commonwealth of Australia, auDA will administer the .au ccTLD for the benefit of the Australian community."

http://www.auda.org.au/constitution/constitutionsub/

Are auDA living up to their primary stated objective as quoted above?

 

[DomainNames]

auDA constitution states:

"Taking the view that the Internet Domain Name System is a public asset, and that the .au ccTLD is under the sovereign control of the Commonwealth of Australia, auDA will administer the .au ccTLD for the benefit of the Australian community."

http://www.auda.org.au/constitution/constitutionsub/

Are auDA living up to their primary stated objective as quoted above?

Interesting to read your post from 4 years ago..

.We have at least been advised of this https://www.auda.org.au/news/2016-agm-announcements/

" Mr Boardman spoke of plans to make auDA a more transparent organisation"​

Strange however a lot of previously available information ( board meeting notes etc) is missing from the auDA website now?

I am not sure if this is a change in the plans to make auDA a more transparent organisation or just a simple auDA website bug error with some many pages now missing?

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=c...&gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=auda+transparency&*
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/...9-february-2015-governance-committee-minutes/
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/community/auda-foundation/

Page not found

It appears that you were trying to access a page that doesn't exist.

Please check the spelling of the URL you were trying to access and try again.​

 

[DomainNames]

https://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/x31762.html
Copyright © 2008 Jeremy Malcolm. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
2008??

"The second shortcoming is that when the Board of auDA elects to engage in policy development on its own account, there is no top–down accountability to constrain the process it employs. As a result, as former auDA board member Kim Davies writes:


There have been some cases when operational changes or new policies have been implemented without advance notice to the general public, with no ability for public participation in the policy’s formulation other than through indirect means such as lobbying auDA directors. As it has not been practice for board members to explain their deliberations in public, or canvas specific opinion on an issue prior to decision-making, this is not an effective mechanism to channel contributions into the board’s considerations.[28] "​