The Elephant In The Room

[neddy]

I've been around for a while, but recently I discovered something very worrying for all those that buy domains on the drops - particularly higher value domain names.

If the "barmy army" have their way at auDA (with sincere apologies to English cricket fans!), and direct registrations are brought in, then that high value .com.au domain name you just bought on the drops may not entitle you to the .au (if and when it is allocated).

Think I'm having a lend? Have a read of Domainer today.

Not only is there no true demand for direct registrations (and they shouldn't be brought in at all), but if they are introduced without proper safeguards being put in place for .com.au holders, then the scenario I have highlighted in this article will potentially come into play.

That’s one of the main reasons Shane Moore and I are running for the auDA Board.

 

[snoopy]

Little doubt this is going to cause big issues in circumstances where George's Fish and Chip Shop on the .net.au will potentially have windfall over someone who spent 20k on the drops. It is going to get ugly if such a policy comes out and people start trying to buy those names from people like George in order to jump the allocation queue and trump the .com.au owner (or sell it to them).

 

[Scott.L]

“auDA has always been about what is fair. I would say trademarks first and then longest licence.” – Regulator (page 41)

Yeah, that’s fair?

Obviously written by a regulator with no invested interest in the DNS or one who sees the opportunity to indirectly profit from a conflict by its introduction.

 

[robert]

With the .com market…

Hang on…

I just cross-referenced a .com name to prove the Creation Date isn’t changed with .com – but strangely my Creation Dates for all my .com domain names that have been moved to TPP have ALSO BEEN RESET to recent Creation Dates?!?!

Is this a fundamental design flaw at NetRegistry and Melbourne IT?!?!?! Are they overwriting Creation Date HISTORY of all domain names?!?!?!? Not only .com.au but also .com?!?!? For how long has this been happening?????

For example, look up my name MelbourneAccommodation.com

The creation date is 2015 – but if you look at Wayback Machine, it was created in 2003..

I'm sure other registrars around the world don't override the Creation Date?! Can someone else please confirm this?

What the hell is going on here?!

 

[johno69]

I was caught like this with .nz. Seems to be of little worry to me now as who cares about .nz. But at the time I caught a very nice .co.nz and was not able to secure the .nz as caught domains are essentially new registrations.

 

[Horshack]

Why should there be safeguards for .com.au holders? I certainly don;t think that someone who picks up a .com.au domain name on the drops today should have any entitlement over someone who has registered the .net,au name previously. That's silly. Registrants of .net.au domains pay their registration fees and should have the same entitlements. I can see the potential for a class action compensation claim coming and I assume that is what the NZ registry saw also when they chose their path. I can see no other option other than to follow the NZ path.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Direct registrations > the can of worms only a lawyer would want.

Not needed, wanted or warranted. Why fix what isn't broken?

 

[robert]

Why should there be safeguards for .com.au holders? I certainly don;t think that someone who picks up a .com.au domain name on the drops today should have any entitlement over someone who has registered the .net,au name previously. That's silly. Registrants of .net.au domains pay their registration fees and should have the same entitlements. I can see the potential for a class action compensation claim coming and I assume that is what the NZ registry saw also when they chose their path. I can see no other option other than to follow the NZ path.

This comes across as though you own a bunch of .net.au's
Nothing against you personally, but everyone is in this for themselves.
It's time to take individual cases out of the equation, and think about what's best and fair for the whole .AU space

 

[johno69]

This comes across as though you own a bunch of .net.au's
Nothing against you personally, but everyone is in this for themselves.
It's time to take individual cases out of the equation, and think about what's best and fair for the whole .AU space

It might appear that way but he has valid points. Like I said, I've been caught out by this before but at the end of the day, caught Domain's are new registrations. Why should a new registration have preference over any other?

You can argue that there are so few net.au registered so they don't matter. But that said it won't effect many then.

I would go with first registered gets the option. If they don't want it then go to next registered and so on.

The only .au I really want I only have in net.au and the .com.au has been registered 15 years. But fair is fair. They should have more rights, but not because its com over net.

 

[Horshack]

I only have a couple Robert but I can see the argument from all sides and I also agree with most in believing that the best thing for the space is not to introduce direct registrations at all. I think the elephant in the room is a potential compensation claim and not safeguards for .com.au holders.

 

[Lemon]

It might appear that way but he has valid points. Like I said, I've been caught out by this before but at the end of the day, caught Domain's are new registrations. Why should a new registration have preference over any other?

Technically in Australia a TLO is also a new registration according to auDA policy so all TLO's should have had their creation date reset as should have been the case of eagle.com.au

 

[Scott.L]

Did this creation date reset issue exist from day one or was it a consequence of Whois data being used by unsolicited renewal notices to registrants back in the day, subsequently triggered a technical switch in creation dates? Very interesting.

 

[Lemon]

Did this creation date reset issue exist from day one or was it a consequence of Whois data being used by unsolicited renewal notices to registrants back in the day, subsequently triggered a technical switch in creation dates? Very interesting.

The question is when is day 1. Is that when Ausregistry took over the contract and created a new database which means all pre ausregistry names will have the same creation date or is day 1 the beginning of time.... It would be interesting to find out the creation date of i.net.au which is one of the oldest .au names out there.

 

[Scott.L]

Surely buried within ICANN Who is policy is a provision to disallow the deletion of a creation date record? for example - delegation and transfer of the .au

 

[Lemon]

The question is when is day 1. Is that when Ausregistry took over the contract and created a new database which means all pre ausregistry names will have the same creation date or is day 1 the beginning of time.... It would be interesting to find out the creation date of i.net.au which is one of the oldest .au names out there.

Actually just did a recovery on one of mine. So answered my own question.
Creation date: 13-May-1998 00:00:00 UTC
Expiry date: 14-May-2018 23:59:59 UTC

 

[neddy]

If you read my Domainer article, the main point I was trying to get across was this:

"With this level of uncertainity about "create dates", would you spend thousands on an expired domain name on the drops?"

 

[robert]

Did this creation date reset issue exist from day one or was it a consequence of Whois data being used by unsolicited renewal notices to registrants back in the day, subsequently triggered a technical switch in creation dates? Very interesting.

Awesome question!

 

[robert]

Actually just did a recovery on one of mine. So answered my own question.
Creation date: 13-May-1998 00:00:00 UTC
Expiry date: 14-May-2018 23:59:59 UTC

Yes, but if you let this name (which must be bloody awesome if it is from 1998?!?!?) go to the drops, it will LOSE its AWESOME CREATION DATE.
How old a domain name is, has always been very important to the .COM community. Some people have sold names from the perspective that "the name is 21 years old!!!!"
It is absolutely CRAZY in my mind, that AusRegistry or NetRegistry, or whoever decided to DESTROY and REPLACE the CREATION DATE of a domain name, just because it dropped.
WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO MADE THIS DECISION?
WHY DID THEY MAKE THIS DECISION?

Imagine you go to a bottle shop and ask for a vintage wine, and the guy says - "oh, SOME of those bottles over there are awesome, SOME are about ten years old."
"Oh really?" you reply. "I'll go take a look!"
"Hey!" you moan back at the guy. "Most of the labels are ripped off, but the prices are still on the bottle... and they're all $500 for each bottle... how do I know which ones are 2 years old and which ones are 5 years old or 10 years old?"
"Not sure", says the bottle shop guy.
CRAZY.

 

[robert]

The question is when is day 1. Is that when Ausregistry took over the contract and created a new database which means all pre ausregistry names will have the same creation date or is day 1 the beginning of time.... It would be interesting to find out the creation date of i.net.au which is one of the oldest .au names out there.

If AusRegistry did this.
WHY?
and WHO implemented that rule FOR WHAT REASON?

 

[Lemon]

If you read my Domainer article, the main point I was trying to get across was this:

"With this level of uncertainity about "create dates", would you spend thousands on an expired domain name on the drops?"

With the uncertainty around direct registrations in general I think only a brave person would spend big on a .com.au
What about the person who decides to launch a new brand in Australia using a .com.au. Spends thousands on marketing and all of a sudden direct registrations come out and he has no rights to the .au
auDA is supposed to create stability in the market. The direct registration debate is far from achieving that goal.