auDA ends exclusive negotiations with AusRegistry...

[eBranding.com.au]

I agree with Mr Goldstein.
.id.au domain names have been available to register for something like 27 years. People registered them and should be allowed the equivalent direct .au in the name of "choice".
I just wrote a new blog about this over at my new domain news (for end-users) website, DomainFriday.com.au

Thanks for the link Robert.

You've suggested that "every Australian TLD should be granted first rights to direct .au registrations". I think that approach would be a huge mistake. You've only got to look at the NZ example of implementing direct registrations to see how well that worked out. What a mess.

I also think that some of the advice in your article could get people into trouble, i.e. "If you have the opportunity to purchase the .net.au version of your domain name (or any of the other second level TLD’s including .org.au and .id.au) now would be a good opportunity to do so."
Added emphasis is mine.

For a start, .org.au domains are restricted to "charities and non-profit organisations". So businesses should certainly not be registering those for brand protection. In a similar vein, .id.au domains are restricted to "individuals who are Australian citizens or residents"; they aren't intended for businesses and domains like BBQShop.id.au wouldn't meet the requirements for the extension. It might be worth updating your article to be clear about the eligibility requirements for those restricted extensions.

With a dedicated extension already in place for non-profits, why should .org.au holders have equal access to direct registrations (e.g. domain.au)? That makes no sense to me.

There are many, many reasons why I believe .com.au holders should be given first allocation rights, but rather than posting an essay here, I'll simply link to my most recent submission to auDA (November 2016):
http://www.theluckycountry.com.au/w...sultations-Luke-Summers-The-Lucky-Country.pdf

 

[snoopy]

I also think that some of the advice in your article could get people into trouble, i.e. "If you have the opportunity to purchase the .net.au version of your domain name (or any of the other second level TLD’s including .org.au and .id.au) now would be a good opportunity to do so."
Added emphasis is mine.

AUDA will be doing their best to get the eligibility as loose as possible to get auction bidders numbers up in my view, i.e. allow .asn.au, .id.au, .gov.au etc etc.

 

[neddy]

This morning I had a chat with Cameron Boardman from auDA.

Whilst some of what he said was “off the record”, he did say that I could inform readers that:

♦ The decision about AusRegistry (made at the Board meeting on 24th April) had nothing whatsoever to do with their performance and integrity as a registry operator. There are absolutely no complaints in that regard. A multitude of other factors had been taken into consideration.

♦ There will be a “fairly significant announcement” made next week in relation to the tender process.​

More on Domainer ...

I also revisited some audio from the last AGM - and in particular, Mr Boardman's responses to certain questions posed by members here. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

 

[Scott.L]

auDA BUYS austregistry? why build it when you can buy it.

 

[snoopy]

This morning I had a chat with Cameron Boardman from auDA.

Cheers Ned, did he admit or deny anything regarding government intervention?

 

[snoopy]

auDA BUYS austregistry? why build it when you can buy it.

They'd be buying something they already own the rights to. Can see them buying equipment etc maybe.

 

[snoopy]

Think the seeds of all this were sewn when Ausregistry decided to sell to Neustar. Not a great idea to make it obvious you are making $100million+ from a resource you don't actually own. Obviously it took Goldengate for something to be done but it was simmering with the first sale.

Reminds me of when Snapnames got bought, a few months later their two main registrars (netsol and enom) just set up Namejet and dumped Snapnames, they weren't going to leave tens of millions on the table.

Australian drop catching may be next to go, another one where it is a public resource being mined with minimal flowback.

 

[neddy]

Cheers Ned, did he admit or deny anything regarding government intervention?

On the record, he did not.

But even "Blind Freddy" can read between the lines. As I have written before, the "Golden Gate" announcement back in December blindsided auDA, and led us to where we are today.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

With profits and corporate takeovers pushing the direct registration barrow, do you think that strategy will die?

 

[robert]

Thanks for the link Robert.

You've suggested that "every Australian TLD should be granted first rights to direct .au registrations". I think that approach would be a huge mistake. You've only got to look at the NZ example of implementing direct registrations to see how well that worked out. What a mess.

I also think that some of the advice in your article could get people into trouble, i.e. "If you have the opportunity to purchase the .net.au version of your domain name (or any of the other second level TLD’s including .org.au and .id.au) now would be a good opportunity to do so."
Added emphasis is mine.

For a start, .org.au domains are restricted to "charities and non-profit organisations". So businesses should certainly not be registering those for brand protection. In a similar vein, .id.au domains are restricted to "individuals who are Australian citizens or residents"; they aren't intended for businesses and domains like BBQShop.id.au wouldn't meet the requirements for the extension. It might be worth updating your article to be clear about the eligibility requirements for those restricted extensions.

With a dedicated extension already in place for non-profits, why should .org.au holders have equal access to direct registrations (e.g. domain.au)? That makes no sense to me.

There are many, many reasons why I believe .com.au holders should be given first allocation rights, but rather than posting an essay here, I'll simply link to my most recent submission to auDA (November 2016):
http://www.theluckycountry.com.au/w...sultations-Luke-Summers-The-Lucky-Country.pdf

Thanks for the advice, but I'm fine with my article and mean what I say.
As for "getting people into trouble", I think not. I clearly said "if you have to opportunity", like many people do.
People in this forum can speculate on what is going to happen all they like. We will see what happens, won't we.

 

[Scott.L]

They'd be buying something they already own the rights to. Can see them buying equipment etc maybe.

16.3 Special Resolutions
The following matters will require a special resolution of the Members in Meeting:
a. any business which the Corporations Act states requires a special resolution;
b. any alteration to auDA's legal status;
c. voluntary winding up of auDA;
d. changing the purposes, objects or scope of auDA;
e. any variation or amendment to, or repeal of, this Constitution; and
f. making, varying, or repealing auDA's by-laws

When is the Meeting?

 

[snoopy]

16.3 Special Resolutions
The following matters will require a special resolution of the Members in Meeting:
a. any business which the Corporations Act states requires a special resolution;
b. any alteration to auDA's legal status;
c. voluntary winding up of auDA;
d. changing the purposes, objects or scope of auDA;
e. any variation or amendment to, or repeal of, this Constitution; and
f. making, varying, or repealing auDA's by-laws

When is the Meeting?

Looking at what is in their constitution I don't think they are changing the purpose, scope or objects of AUDA, or any of the other bolded parts above,

They are simply bring "in house" areas that they chose to outsource.

For example in the constitution under "objects"

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/#3

e. to manage the operation of critical technical functions including:
i. the primary and secondary .au name servers;
ii. zone files for second level domains; and
iii. a searchable data base containing information on registrations within the .au ccTLD.

So they are supposed to be doing all of technical functions, but they previously outsourced it to Ausregistry.

 

[snoopy]

Let's get behind on AUDA on this, whether it has been forced upon them or not it is the only decent thing AUDA has done in years.

 

[robert]

I see this as a positive thing that auDA are doing. I don't believe letting the government control it would be a wise move, more like a backward move, as mentioned on my latest .au blog article.

 

[robert]

AUDA will be doing their best to get the eligibility as loose as possible to get auction bidders numbers up in my view, i.e. allow .asn.au, .id.au, .gov.au etc etc.

Good.
As I said in my article, the ONLY way they are going to be allowed to bring direct .AU into existence is if they are bringing it in for MORE CHOICE - not just double-dipping by giving it to ONE SINGLE TLD version.

 

[Scott7]

The probable fact is this was a Government pushed decision based on information provided to them, more involvement by them and some media behind the scenes questioning about auDA, conflicts of interest, foreign overseas ownership , risk to Australian Critical Infrastructure and processes...It came to light very little improvement in the wholesale registry provider have taken place PLUS there may have been serious issues of security and no back up plans or registry if something went wrong.

Fair call.
Maybe next the Government will force auDA to push through this idea:

work with the search engines years in advance, tell them we are dumping the .com.au, give everyone the .au and be done with it. GIVE the domain to the .com.au owner

source

If Tim's provided it to them, that is

 

[snoopy]

Good.
As I said in my article, the ONLY way they are going to be allowed to bring direct .AU into existence is if they are bringing it in for MORE CHOICE - not just double-dipping by giving it to ONE SINGLE TLD version.

If you give rights to say .id.au, .net.au etc that is not adding "more choice". I'm sure AUDA will say this is about choice whilst at the same time all the marketing will be geared around trying to get existing registrants to buy another name.

There is no shortage of .com.au domains, even .com doesn't have a shortage and the base is 40 times the size. You can see the lack of any shortage in the very weak aftermarket for .com.au names. It is a very small market, the better names sell for very low prices and 99% of people easily find an available name.

 

[neddy]

One of my most read articles on Domainer was this one from September 2015: "Follow The Money"

I've just read it again, and noticed there was a comment there from Gavin Collins (Crazy Domains). Why is that relevant? He was recently appointed "by recommendation" to replace Kartic (Melbourne IT) as a Supply Class Director of auDA. He's definitely not biased is he? He wants to increase "growth" in the .au market - even if it is forced and artificial.

 

[snoopy]

Ned, in that case you have to say he is the perfect replacement.

 

[neddy]

Ned, in that case you have to say he is the perfect replacement.

He stood for election in 2015, and came last.

Votes (by proxy and in person)

Gavin Collins – 3 votes

James Deck – 4 votes

George Pongas – 18 votes

Kartic Srinivasan – 17 votes

Elected: George Pongas and Kartic Srinivasan
​

I have to wonder why they didn't tap Angelo Giuffrida from Ventra IP / Synergy to fill the position instead of Gavin? He was the unlucky "Supply" candidate in November 2016 (just 5 months ago). Friends in high places perhaps?