.AU Analogies

[neddy]

What's the math on consultation...5000 people decided it was good from 1.7 million registrants...?

No, even worse than that. A massive number of those 5000 were told it was good by registrars and therefore they should "vote yes". They weren't told why it could possibly be disadvantageous. Push polling does work - ask any politician!

 

[DomainNames]

As some people have said, lets avoid hysteria, direct registrations are coming, that decision has been made.
Everyone needs to put their heads together to develop an implementation model, and reasons to support that model. If a good model with solid reasoning is developed then it can be submitted to any Implementation Committee/Panel.

Hi mate, how can everyone put their heads together? My concern is this will again be decided by a select few with some vested interests sadly.

From a supply point of view it would be obvious to most supply wants to make money from the changes as their key motivation?

We may see some more surveys on implementation etc but who will write the surveys this time?

Will the "surveys" be sent to all existing registrants by Auda via email numerous times so every existing .com.au owner get the right to comment and understand it?

I think we may see some more propaganda from very well financed "supply" groups to push the survey and voting the way they want to make the most money they can from it...

 

[DomainNames]

Erhan, I totally disagree with you on this. As you know, I have banged on about this ad infinitum.

You would surely have to agree that in reality there was no more than the illusion of public consultation (given that there are approximately 1,700,000 individual registrants in Australia).

Given your love of politics and tactics, the game changer in this process (imho) was the massive pressure that the Supply side exerted - particularly the mass mail out done by the Melbourne IT group of registrars 5 days before the survey results closed.

I wrote about this on Domainer today.

Anyway, that ship has sailed has now; and the destination is "implementation". I will be focusing all my attention on that from hereon in.

I read this survey from Melbourne IT they sent out to drive the YES vote, http://www.domainer.com.au/justifying-the-end-result/

This is the most blatant conflict of interest I have ever seen. Melbourne IT is the on the Auda board who made the decision to bring in the new .au extension and they sent this email out to drive the YES vote?

Melbourne IT should perhaps be removed from the AUDA board immediately and banned from future boards themselves or via puppet candidates.

Pick up your phones to Jo Lim at Auda 03 8341 4111 and bring this Melbourne IT Yes vote rigged survey to her attention people! This really seems to be a black and white conflict of interest.

Unless you complain like Ned has you will just keep copping it.

 

[DomainNames]

How I don't understand ? The Names Policy Panel had extensive public consultation. If you are referring to the short survey from auDA, the survey was NOT designed to gauge whether people wanted direct registration (in fact it took place after the Panel had presented its final report to the Board - having already supported direct registrations), it was to determine demand when/if introduced.

This looks like a very clear Auda board conflict of interest. It is becoming more obvious some on the Auda board in Supply DID engage in activity to drive the Yes vote they wanted http://www.domainer.com.au/justifying-the-end-result/

Can you bring this to the attention of the board itself and Auda officially? I would like to read of it being brought to the attention of them on the next board meeting PUBLIC minutes and what action Auda will take against Board members who did such things of which maybe Melbourne IT was not alone?

 

[findtim]

erhan you have a good portfolio, whats your clear view "wish list" of how implementation would happen?
tim

 

[DomainNames]

What Was The Game Changer?

The publicly available Minutes basically tell you this.

It was noted that this was by far the highest number of responses to an auDA Panel consultation process, stimulated in large part by an EDM sent to customers of a large registrar group.... AUDA BOARD MEMBER "MELBOURNE IT"

 

[snoopy]

This looks like a very clear Auda board conflict of interest. It is becoming more obvious some on the Auda board in Supply DID engage in activity to drive the Yes vote they wanted http://www.domainer.com.au/justifying-the-end-result/

Can you bring this to the attention of the board itself and Auda officially? I would like to read of it being brought to the attention of them on the next board meeting PUBLIC minutes and what action Auda will take against Board members who did such things of which maybe Melbourne IT was not alone?

I'd say there is issues in the way AUDA in structured because on both sides of fence there is obvious biases. I don't know if there is too many people representing the general public. To get voted in people need to appeal to either registrars (supply side) or domainers (demand side).

Is there any truth to this statement in the way AUDA is functioning?

Given that the Internet naming system is a public resource in the sense that its functions must be administered in the public or common interest, auDA recognises that the management and administration of the au ccTLD are subject to the ultimate authority of the Commonwealth of Australia
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-govt-endorse.pdf

 

[DomainNames]

BUMP - A very important discussion.

 

[DomainNames]

No, even worse than that. A massive number of those 5000 were told it was good by registrars and therefore they should "vote yes". They weren't told why it could possibly be disadvantageous. Push polling does work - ask any politician!

Shameful....Plenty of evidence of rigged surveys

This will really help in what is coming shortly