Direct registrations are happening

[DomainNames]

Google does not use Google.nz ... Google uses google.CO.NZ
Google does not use Google.uk.... Google uses google.CO.UK
Google does not use Google.sg ... Google uses google.COM.SG

If anyone knows anything about the internet, about search and the need to use particular extensions online for traffic etc google may know? Like millions of people and businesses Google is sick of wasting money on registering or renewing hundreds of extensions and feeding the greed of supply registrars for new unneeded extensions.

Do not believe the fake propaganda Australia needs another new domain name extension. It is just a scam so some in Supply can make more money using false limited information.

Millions of .net.au names are unregistered and available and hundreds of thousands of .com.au are for sale on the aftermarket for people who really want a particular name.... but just like Potts Point Sydney etc premium realestate will always be limited to first come first served

 

[DomainNames]

auDA policy "Domain name licences are allocated on a 'first come, first served' basis."

 

[findtim]

Google does not use ..........

in reference to .uk:
how can anyone "get the message" in the uk if google doesn't come to the party? i STRUGGLE to find a .uk in any search result so i see a few flaws in that
1) people have the right to the .uk but are holding off till the last minute to register, which means they are doing no forward SEO on that domain so it would be a long time before it even attempts to rank.
2) if it isn't going to rank then why would you switch to it ! ( thus FORCED defensive registration money grab )
3) if you attempted to shift you would have to go through a longgggggggg process of backlink redirections or a time consuming contact the other website owner.
4) the other website owner is more likely to delete your dud link then change it for you, a good site would be swamped with requests.
5) to my knowledge google has not said anything about giving priority to .uk, but they made it clear they were taking action on EMD's, so why not do the same to .co.uk ?
6) the cost ! i am SICK of supply saying "its just $20" "but if your domain is worth $4000 its only $20" , its not, its everything that comes along with it.

i think there is more then enough history in .uk to start drawing some solid fail conclusions.

tim

 

[DomainNames]

Just some examples of the new TLD's being pushed by registrars and "Supply". This makes a joke of any claims from supply registrars etc people have no choice for extensions online already. worse still I just read some detailed information by very large USA registrar bodies suggesting companies register lots of the new Tlds and "just try them" in addition to their .com etc. Just try registering at 1000 extensions ... laughable.. some are up to $6000 to register for 2 years!
Some extensions are hundreds of dollars each for 1 year registration... what a scam.

PEOPLE VALUE .COM, .COM.AU, .CO.NZ, CO.UK ETC. People are very wary of all the new TLD rubbish which is confusing users and wasting peoples money to register. GREEDY Supply registrars etc are interested in the money not making it easy for businesses to brand themselves or users to find them.

Very few of the new tlds are even showing up on google searches.They are already being price dumped by Registrars in some cases!

https://www.onlydomains.com/domains
Over 1,000 extensions available
New N/A 1 year $1.30
.accountant New N/A 1 year $2.61
.bid New N/A 1 year $2.61
.cricket New N/A 1 year $2.61
.date New N/A 1 year $2.61
.download New N/A 1 year $2.61
.faith New N/A 1 year $2.61
.loan New N/A 1 year $2.61
.party New N/A 1 year $2.61
.racing New N/A 1 year $2.61
.review New N/A 1 year $2.61
.science New N/A 1 year $2.61
.trade New N/A 1 year $2.61
.webcam New N/A 1 year $2.61
.win New N/A 1 year $2.61
etc....

 

[DomainNames]

Ausregistry is now owned by USA foreign company Neaustar Inc. People may wish to read their ideas..I do not think this is what Australia needs or wants. They obviously know their push to promote the new .au extensions is a way for them to get existing Australian registrants to have to defend register the new proposed .au additional extension.... and guess what they will want to make money from it!

https://www.neustar.biz/resources/faqs/new-tld-faqs

"Most of today’s brands are following a defensive domain name strategy. The majority of a brand’s domain name portfolio is comprised of protective registrations"

"There’s no harm in testing names for a certain period of time to see what names best serve your goals."

"Do I need to replace my existing .com site?

No. An immediate switch is not necessary. Start by launching your nic.TLD page and other content-specific domains.

An early option is to redirect your nic.TLD to your .com, but this should only be an intermediate step to building a lasting naming convention under your .brand that mirrors your overall domain name strategy. Another option is to create a whole new page to communicate your new TLD plans with customers."​

 

[DomainNames]

ok so with this thinking Carsales.com.au will buy Carsales.cars. They redirect Carsales.cars to Carsales.com.au then when the traffic and brand is so massive of Carsales.cars they will just use the Carsales.cars website instead as their main brand website? This is total B.S. marketing spin from a registrar in my opinion to sell more domain name extensions. Crazy stuff.

I do not think we will see Holden.com.au Ford.com.au swapping their main website to Holden.cars Ford.cars ever and that would go for every major .com name. The .com name is the most valuable in the world and the best for branding....This is fact backed up by sales results.... in many cases the same goes for .com.au, .co.uk, .co.nz etc

 

[findtim]

Just try registering at 1000 extensions ... laughable

nominate uk:
"We currently offer over 3000 Domain Extensions. Whether it be a New Gtld (.ie .cars / .flowers /.wed etc.) or .al (Albania) through to .zw (Zimbabwe)................."

netregistry don't give a stuff which extension you register either, but they see a .au easier to sell then a .flowers , and stuff aus businesses, http://screencast.com/t/40bYSg7MI

tim

 

[DomainNames]

Obviously no more domain name extensions are really needed due to demand. The new proposed Australia .au extension Survey was rigged for a yes vote. This is a clear fact with proof... some of which has been posted here and on domainer.com.au.

auDA needs to really look into who is pushing it, who should be on the auDA board or even able to sell Australian names anymore.

Too many conflicts of interest have been proven.. most of the proof has been written and promoted by themselves!

 

[findtim]

most of the proof has been written and promoted by themselves!

not enough, still many unanswered questions, like what is the government doing about it?

tim

 

[DomainNames]

not enough, still many unanswered questions, like what is the government doing about it?

tim

Did you contact the relevant government Departments and Ministers? It seems in my opinion they have been misled so far on the legitimacy of the survey, real demand for the new proposed extra .au extension, processes and very limited quoting of facts about the .uk and .nz roll out and success etc.

Whoever is on the auDA board from the government needs to be far more active and not just believe what they are being told by Supply who have a vested interest to always maximise their own interests and profits.

 

[Scott.L]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just entertaining the idea of how to attack this implementation.

(A) In determining whether an electronic addressing system is of public importance the ACCC must, under the
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997, have regard to whether the addressing is of significant social and/or economic importance to the public in general. [could this apply to the implementation of .au as holding no social and/or economic importance to the public in general]

(B) Subsection 474(6) states - the ACCC may not direct the ACA to issue a determination unless the direction is likely to have a bearing on competition. {could this infer upon the implementation of .au as anti-competitive}

(C) In addition, the TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 doesn't allow the Government, through the ACA to unilaterally assume control of the .au namespace. The international governing body -ICANN - must be involved in transferring authority.

So ICANN is the place to go, the government is basically at an arms length.

 

[snoopy]

So ICANN is the place to go, the government is basically at an arms length.

I don't think Icann could care what AUDA is doing, it is government that oversees AUDA. Not sure who the best people to contact would be though. I guess the Minister for Communications but there is probably other people lower down as well as other politicians perhaps, maybe the person who sat in on the last AUDA meeting? (Annaliese Williams - Department of Cumunications). I'm guessing she would be familiar with some of the current issues with AUDA.

https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-govt-endorse.pdf

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;

 

[findtim]

icann!, that would be the same one we just gave $280K to !!!!!!!!!!!!

tim

 

[DomainNames]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just entertaining the idea of how to attack this implementation.

(A) In determining whether an electronic addressing system is of public importance the ACCC must, under the
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997, have regard to whether the addressing is of significant social and/or economic importance to the public in general. [could this apply to the implementation of .au as holding no social and/or economic importance to the public in general]

(B) Subsection 474(6) states - the ACCC may not direct the ACA to issue a determination unless the direction is likely to have a bearing on competition. {could this infer upon the implementation of .au as anti-competitive}

(C) In addition, the TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 doesn't allow the Government, through the ACA to unilaterally assume control of the .au namespace. The international governing body -ICANN - must be involved in transferring authority.

So ICANN is the place to go, the government is basically at an arms length.

ICAAN is the last place to go and the reasons a lot of the problems now exist!

 

[DomainNames]

ICAAN is the last place to go and the reasons a lot of the problems now exist!

read previous posts for contact details of http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/mitch_fifield
and the opposition Minister. They are the one's to phone and email and write to or visit

 

[DomainNames]

People who are concerned or have information on any possible conflicts of interest, possible Yes Only vote survey stacking, possible supply membership stacking, suggestions Department of Communications get more involved or take over management of the Australian Domain Name Administration can contact;

With all of the issues happening it might be better the revenue and profits of Australian domain name registrations, renewals and change of registrant fees goes to the Federal Government and back for the benefit of to Australian taxpayer. This is how Singapore does it very successfully. The Department of Communications already is the main promoter of the internet in Australia. They could do the job perfectly.
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do

I am very doubtful Australians should be sending the massive profits to overseas entities now. This does not help Australia, and this is not Australian innovation at work.

Does the Federal Government know Ausregistry is owned by a foreign USA company Neustar Inc now? How about the profits of all the Australian domain name registrations, renewals, change of registrant fees going offshore, Australian National Security of our domain name space or registrant privacy concerns this database is accessible in full offshore by an an company? I'm not sure we would allow a China or other country company to do it would we?

Contacts to voice concerns to preferably in writing;

Jamie Wassef
Adviser | Office of the Hon Jason Clare MP
Shadow Minister for Communications | Shadow Minister for Resources | Federal Member for Blaxland
SYD02 9790 2466 | CBR 02 6277 4904
E jamie.wassef@aph.gov.au
_______________
Luke Colemen
Advisor to The Office of Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Minister for Communications
Minister for the Arts
Manager of Government Business in the Senate
P: 02 6277 7480
E: Luke.Coleman@communications.gov.au

______
https://nxt.org.au/contact/

 

[snoopy]

Contacts to voice concerns to preferably in writing;

Jamie Wassef
Adviser | Office of the Hon Jason Clare MP
Shadow Minister for Communications | Shadow Minister for Resources | Federal Member for Blaxland
SYD02 9790 2466 | CBR 02 6277 4904
E jamie.wassef@aph.gov.au
_______________
Luke Colemen
Advisor to The Office of Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Minister for Communications
Minister for the Arts
Manager of Government Business in the Senate
P: 02 6277 7480
E: Luke.Coleman@communications.gov.au

______
https://nxt.org.au/contact/

Cheers, sounds like the people to be contacting. It we can get a decent amount of mail to these people it may well raise some eyebrows.

 

[Scott.L]

Ok so what was the the result of informing Mitch?

 

[Scott.L]

this is interesting -
Clause 17 – ACMA to consult ACCC in relation to management of electronic addressing
Clause 17 is a provision equivalent to section 12A of the ACA Act.

The purpose of clause 17 is to require the ACMA to consult with the ACCC before carrying out its functions under paragraphs 11(1)(a) and (b) (which give the ACMA additional functions in relation to preparing to provide for the management of electronic addressing or providing for the management of electronic addressing where instructed to do so by the Minister), where, in the ACMA’s opinion, that would have a significant effect on competition or consumer protection. This requirement would ensure that the ACCC would continue to have a role in issues that have a significant effect on competition or consumer protection in relation to the management of electronic addressing

So Yes, Mitch is the man to speak to about it.

 

[DomainNames]

Ok so what was the the result of informing Mitch?

habe you

this is interesting -
Clause 17 – ACMA to consult ACCC in relation to management of electronic addressing
Clause 17 is a provision equivalent to section 12A of the ACA Act.

The purpose of clause 17 is to require the ACMA to consult with the ACCC before carrying out its functions under paragraphs 11(1)(a) and (b) (which give the ACMA additional functions in relation to preparing to provide for the management of electronic addressing or providing for the management of electronic addressing where instructed to do so by the Minister), where, in the ACMA’s opinion, that would have a significant effect on competition or consumer protection. This requirement would ensure that the ACCC would continue to have a role in issues that have a significant effect on competition or consumer protection in relation to the management of electronic addressing

So Yes, Mitch is the man to speak to about it.

Department of Comms and Ministers and advisors need all the contact and help they can get to get to the bottom of all this. They are wondering why the auDA board members are dropping out now also.... It seems what they have been fed so far was VERY one sided and not the full facts or truth. No facts where ever provided to them about the dropping numbers of registrations, renewals etc of the direct .NZ or other extensions etc. They where like many possibly misled at meetings and with propaganda materials, questionable tainted Yes only vote stacked survey results....in my opinion... and probably the opinion of many.

They also might wonder if the Government would be better off having the $10 million bank balance to use instead of the not for profit auDA. $10 Million can build a new regional school or a new ward or added beds at a hospital...