Blackout Week Protest

[DomainShield]

That's what you'd like it to be about because you hope to push through direct registrations!

Snoopy your cynicism is misplaced. I am a humanist who is trying to make peace with living in a capitalist society. I am content to give up monetary reward for the greater good of a community. This behaviour is often confusing for people more fully committed to capitalism.

Issue 1 in my protest is actually a bad thing for me commercially but I think it is for the greater good of all people. I would be happy to give up the money I make off of domains which got purged because people are sick in hospital being treated for cancer during the 90 days renewal window, or people dealing with a dying relative rather then being at work at the right time of year to renew their domain name.

Get Issue 2 overturned, cancelled or implemented and I'll keep quiet. Sitting about without a plan one way or the other is what I am protesting.

 

[snoopy]

I am a humanist who is trying to make peace with living in a capitalist society. I am content to give up monetary reward for the greater good of a community. This behaviour is often confusing for people more fully committed to capitalism.

So am I. Come DomainShield, let us pray for humanity, pray for society & pray AUDA quickly implements direct registrations.

 

[neddy]

This protest is 100% about the delays and periods of inactivity and not about the decision/s themselves.

If due process is followed and a decision is changed or a deadline has to be moved (with some sort of an excuse given) I think everyone knows I'd simply buy a beer and sit around moaning and groaning about it in a pub all afternoon.

Issue 1 in my protest is actually a bad thing for me commercially but I think it is for the greater good of all people. I would be happy to give up the money I make off of domains which got purged because people are sick in hospital being treated for cancer during the 90 days renewal window, or people dealing with a dying relative rather then being at work at the right time of year to renew their domain name.

Get Issue 2 overturned, cancelled or implemented and I'll keep quiet. Sitting about without a plan one way or the other is what I am protesting.

Whilst I disagree with Anthony on the need for direct registrations, I'm totally with him about all the "delays and periods of inactivity" - and the lack of a proper plan. I'd add to that indecision, thought bubbles, and piss poor communication and transparency.

We do not need market uncertainty - auDA has a lot to answer for.

 

[robert]

I miss Domain Shield!!!

 

[robert]

Please tell me Domain Shield is turned back on in the morning... please oh please...

 

[DomainNames]

With all due respect you are arguing about something that was decided in 2015 and put to bed in 2016. Just because you don't like the outcome and you have the energy to keep talking about it two years later does not change the outcome. The official decision from the auDA board is that Direct Registration has support from the Board and is to be implemented. I do not think that a report from an accounting firm or the CEO's personal opinion outrank the official auDA Board decision.

I need you to finally accept the outcome of the 2015 Names Panel and subsequent acceptance by the Board. Once that is accepted then it is possible to focus on the effect that dragging this project out for years is having and is going to keep having on investments (large and small) in the .au namespace.

It is highly unlikely that delays are being caused deliberately because of some "BS" you imagine has been called out. It is much more likely that the delay is caused by auDA turning over 80 - 85% of their staff in the last two years. The new staff tasked with implementing Direct Registration policy took a look at the current policies and balked at the prospect of trying to add direct registration policy into the existing 33 policies. So they have proposed a plan to spend 12 months simplifying the policy into 3 distinct policies. Once simplified they can look at adding direct registration policy into the new framework. Once this new simplified policy is ready then... well um then... um okay well um yes but no but well you see but umm yeah look umm yeah ... it will probably take 3 - 4 months to go from completed policy review to fully deployed and live at the registry. This magical registry which can implement undefined .au policy complexity without testing and without even knowing what it is will already have been awarded (most likely on a 4 year contract) to someone starting July 2018 based on a specification which is being finalised and released in the next two days.

As a project manager (in a previous life) I cannot stop thinking out how bad an idea it is to try to replace the Registry before you get the policy sorted out.
It makes me want to scream out "Hey auDA why don't you extend the existing registry contract for 18 - 24 months so you can sort out your policy changes first" or "Hey auDA if you really want to replace the registry then you need to be honest about your policy review and admit that nothing is going to go live until about 2022." or "Hey guys you cannot realistically overhaul policy and kick out the incumbent registry and lose all your staff and annoy all your members and lose your chairman and lose three directors on the board and keep ignoring anyone with experience in the industry and keep ignoring things like reality and still expect to succeed."

Can somebody please call whoever has oversight over auDA and make them put together a bloody 5 year plan because I don't understand why I have to watch the .au aftermarket collapse and my company close down as a result just because they don't actually know where they are going, yet they insist on running ahead at full speed.

The auDA Board decision of several years ago has been proven wrong... Most of them are no longer on the Board.. The facts are the additional .uk and .nz extensions have failed. The claims they where remarkably successful and as such so would the .au be was pure B.S. auDA fell for it without even looking at real .uk and .nz facts.

The auDA Board was heavily stacked and misled by some parties who want to make more profits. They have actually damaged the .au namespace already. This is the fact.

The Surveys for or against another .au extension where stacked by Yes Only campaigns run by major supply registrars and the wholesale registry contractor it seems also did a lot of promotion for it.

I am sorry for DomainShield in that you chose to invest in the drop market against major competition and the uncertainty of auDA policy but please do not push the same B.S. that another .au extension is needed just because some on a previous auDA board made bad decisions.. As everyone knows many have been made..It is not an excuse and they must be accountable and change them as needed.

The auDA CEO said the Board could in fact reverse/cancel the decision for another .au. But the fact is several parties are still doing all they can to get it in for more registration money for themselves and other benefits.

What is your argument for another competing additional .au extension seeing that the .uk and .nz have less than 10% take up rate and this statement of fact?

https://www.dnc.org.nz/sites/default/files/2016-08/Domain Name Commission - Annual Report - .pdf
"Figure 3 shows the total number of domain names increased from 640,342 (at 1 April 2015) to 656,607 (at 31 March 2016) – a growth of 16,265, or 2.5 percent. The dip between February and March 2016 reflects the one-year anniversary of the end of the preferential registration and registration period - an important part of the registrations direct at the second level change. It appears that some registrants, having exercised their preferential registration rights, have subsequently let the shorter version of their name drop. "

 

[DomainShield]

The auDA Board decision of several years ago has been proven wrong...

You seem to have missed the point... my protest us about auDA sitting on the fence and not either implementing policy change or changing the policy changes. Just sitting around for years and doing nothing is what is hurting our industry.

I don't want to get drawn into yet another discussion about the merits of .au because this is quite frankly the wrong forum for it. There is majority support for direct registration and I am not here to win your votes anyway.

Last Monday auDA announced the "2017 Policy Review Panel" which is going to look into how to implement direct registrations. I am worried that domainers will waste their opportunity to make a pubic submission by allowing their emotions to push for the IF debate again and will not get a clear message across about HOW they want it implemented.

Anyone with a .au domain of any value should be having a think about how they want direct registrations implemented. Then taking some time to write up a letter so they are ready to make a public submission in the next two months or so. The value to being prepared is that many members of the public read the first few public submissions and edit their own submission before submitting theirs. This is a real opportunity to sway pubic opinion and/or to make your voice heard about HOW. It is my personal opinion that writing up a long submission talking about IF will get you labeled as emotional and misguided and your thoughts on HOW could be ignored.

 

[DomainShield]

Please tell me Domain Shield is turned back on in the morning... please oh please...

Robert,

auDA have provided some clarity on HOW the future of direct registration is going to be decided so I will turn the system back on in the afternoon. The system is only going to be usable by existing customers for the next week as I continue my protest to get clarify on WHEN this might happen and to ensure the current Registry Transformation Project is able to implement direct registrations without waiting for a contract renewal negotiation.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

There isn't majority support at all for direct registrations.
There's just vested interest biased surveys.

 

[DomainShield]

There isn't majority support at all for direct registrations.
There's just vested interest biased surveys.

Sadly that is not true. The vested interest argument did have a little traction in late 2015 and early 2016 so the board expressed early reservations. At that point they conducted their own independent survey, the results of which agreed with the so called biased surveys during the names panel. With that information the board then recommended to accept the majority recommendations from the names panel.

With board support auDA then undertook two phases of Qualitative and Quantitative research into the HOW which included one on one interviews with Domainers, Registrars, Members and Regulators. Generally the findings from that are that there are strong opinions on who gets allocated first rights to the domains.

Phase 3 of the "HOW" is now underway (it started on Monday 4th September) and it is going to include a 4 week consultation window in which to you can submit public responses to their Discussion Paper (which is yet to be released).

I strongly urge everyone to gather (and record) their thoughts for how they want direct registration implemented because it is moving along at the normal glacial pace of an auDA policy review. To borrow a phrase "winter is coming" and we need to set aside our differences in order to be prepared.

 

[snoopy]

Sadly that is not true. The vested interest argument did have a little traction in late 2015 and early 2016 so the board expressed early reservations. At that point they conducted their own independent survey, the results of which agreed with the so called biased surveys during the names panel. With that information the board then recommended to accept the majority recommendations from the names panel.

With board support auDA then undertook two phases of Qualitative and Quantitative research into the HOW which included one on one interviews with Domainers, Registrars, Members and Regulators. Generally the findings from that are that there are strong opinions on who gets allocated first rights to the domains.

Phase 3 of the "HOW" is now underway (it started on Monday 4th September) and it is going to include a 4 week consultation window in which to you can submit public responses to their Discussion Paper (which is yet to be released).

I strongly urge everyone to gather (and record) their thoughts for how they want direct registration implemented because it is moving along at the normal glacial pace of an auDA policy review. To borrow a phrase "winter is coming" and we need to set aside our differences in order to be prepared.

The whole process was doubtful, pushed by Ausregistry and supply side interests and then voted in by supply stacked board. The surveys were biased including the the infamous Melbourne IT "vote yes" email. The general public has still not been informed of the proposal.

The only groups to benefits are registrars such as yourself, the registry, and AUDA. For everyone else they are simply being asked to pay twice, a blatant cash grab.

 

[snoopy]

The auDA Board decision of several years ago has been proven wrong... Most of them are no longer on the Board.. The facts are the additional .uk and .nz extensions have failed. The claims they where remarkably successful and as such so would the .au be was pure B.S. auDA fell for it without even looking at real .uk and .nz facts.

.........

The auDA CEO said the Board could in fact reverse/cancel the decision for another .au. But the fact is several parties are still doing all they can to get it in for more registration money for themselves and other benefits.

Yep, two thirds of the previous board has resigned or been sacked since that vote and Ausregistry have not had their contract renewed. The Names Policy Panel Majority arguments have proven to be mostly wrong in hindsight, in particular the "threat of new tlds" and the need to follow the (now disastrous) lead of .uk and .nz.

I'm no fan of Cameron Boardman but he is absolutely right to be applying the brakes on it, you can't rush into something when lots of evidence is coming out that it is going damage the namespace.

He said,

"We are deliberately taking our time to get this right, because internationally the examples are not as strong as we think”.

A less politically correct way to say it would the the Names Policy Panel Majority Report got it wrong and if we rush in now we are likely to do irreparable damage.

 

[DomainShield]

The whole process was doubtful, pushed by Ausregistry and supply side interests and then voted in by supply stacked board. The surveys were biased including the the infamous Melbourne IT "vote yes" email. The general public has still not been informed of the proposal.

The only groups to benefits are registrars such as yourself, the registry, and AUDA. For everyone else they are simply being asked to pay twice, a blatant cash grab.

You seem to have missed out on quite a bit of progress so I'll try save you some time and say this again. The auDA board took the complaints about a biased "vote yes" survey very seriously. As a result they undertook an independent survey. The results of that survey matched the results of the survey which you claim is biased. At that point they voted to accept the recommendations of the 2015 Names Panel on 18 April 2016.

It is also important to understand that at least half of the supply class director did not vote so don't come back with accusations of a biased board. Rather go and ask your demand class and independent directors why they voted for it. I personally would like to ask the same demand class and independent directors what they where thinking when they initially voted for a project to try to award the registry project to auDA rather than outsourcing it. Thankfully that bad idea got overturned through the normal auDA process of getting feedback and then clarifying their position. The problem with the idea of direct registration being a "bad idea" is that they spent time and money trying to prove it was a bad idea and instead found out that there is majority support for the idea.

What is it going to take to get you to understand that this is happening and that you should already be thinking about "how" you want it to look.

 

[snoopy]

You seem to have missed out on quite a bit of progress so I'll try save you some time and say this again. The auDA board took the complaints about a biased "vote yes" survey very seriously. As a result they undertook an independent survey. The results of that survey matched the results of the survey which you claim is biased. At that point they voted to accept the recommendations of the 2015 Names Panel on 18 April 2016.

It is also important to understand that at least half of the supply class director did not vote so don't come back with accusations of a biased board. Rather go and ask your demand class and independent directors why they voted for it.

The second survey was no better than the first, the main issue against direct registrations is the cost to consumers that needs to be clearly highlighted in the survey as it is the main reason against it.

The problem with the biased board is you have Ausregistry on the names policy panel influencing things, the Ausregistry on the board and the same Ausregistry director writing articles pushing for direct registrations.

I personally would like to ask the same demand class and independent directors what they where thinking when they initially voted for a project to try to award the registry project to auDA rather than outsourcing it.

It isn't worth asking independent directors anything, they are appointed by the board and the board was supply stacked at the time. There was only one genuine demand director on the board at the time and he was well and truly outnumbered.

Thankfully that bad idea got overturned through the normal auDA process of getting feedback and then clarifying their position. The problem with the idea of direct registration being a "bad idea" is that they spent time and money trying to prove it was a bad idea and instead found out that there is majority support for the idea.

It wasn't overturned by "normal AUDA process", the chairman was sacked and then rest of the board was told they soon would be also if they didn't remedy the other 3 issues at the AGM including the registry. That has never happened at AUDA before.

What is it going to take to get you to understand that this is happening and that you should already be thinking about "how" you want it to look.

We heard this from supply interests from day one "Just accept it the deal is done". Convenient argument for you and your supply side buddies, but it is nonsense. It needs a another board vote.

 

[DomainShield]

The second survey was no better than the first, the main issue against direct registrations is the cost to consumers that needs to be clearly highlighted in the survey as it is the main reason against it.

The additional cost of a domain registration even at MelbourneIT prices is $70 per year. Small businesses spend more money per annum on dishwashing liquid than domain registrations.

The problem with the biased board is you have Ausregistry on the names policy panel influencing things, the Ausregistry on the board and the same Ausregistry director writing articles pushing for direct registrations.

The problem with a conspiracy theory is when the majority disagrees with you. How exactly did the Ausregistry director (who did not vote) manage to convince independently surveyed members of the public to agree with his idea UNLESS it is actually a popular idea (with the majority of randomly selected people)

It isn't worth asking independent directors anything, they are appointed by the board and the board was supply stacked at the time. There was only one genuine demand director on the board at the time and he was well and truly outnumbered.

I'd like to call BS on this too. Who do you claim is the one genuine demand director and would you please get an official statement from him on how he voted so I can make a comment on his statement.

It wasn't overturned by "normal AUDA process", the chairman was sacked and then rest of the board was told they soon would be also if they didn't remedy the other 3 issues at the AGM including the registry. That has never happened at AUDA before.

AND as if to prove my point... none of those issue revolved around direct registration... so what are you actually trying to prove here.

We heard this from supply interests from day one "Just accept it the deal is done". Convenient argument for you and your supply side buddies, but it is nonsense. It needs a another board vote.

All you need is 15% support from the members and you can call a special meeting to discuss your problem. Then you can try to spill the whole board, then stack it with supporters of an independently proven to be minority opinion. Once that is done you can manipulate all those directors to ignore the evidence and re-do the last 2 - 3 years of policy review to see if you get a different outcome.

 

[Shane]

The additional cost of a domain registration even at MelbourneIT prices is $70 per year. Small businesses spend more money per annum on dishwashing liquid than domain registrations.

True, but we don't buy twice as much dishwashing liquid as we need, for no good reason...

 

[snoopy]

The additional cost of a domain registration even at MelbourneIT prices is $70 per year. Small businesses spend more money per annum on dishwashing liquid than domain registrations.

I don't think many are going to buy this argument. Pay twice because you deem $70 to be not very much?

The problem with a conspiracy theory is when the majority disagrees with you. How exactly did the Ausregistry director (who did not vote) manage to convince independently surveyed members of the public to agree with his idea UNLESS it is actually a popular idea (with the majority of randomly selected people)

MelbourneIT told people to vote "yes" and the second survey was completely lacking because the main issue is increased cost for registrants.

I'd like to call BS on this too. Who do you claim is the one genuine demand director and would you please get an official statement from him on how he voted so I can make a comment on his statement.

Simon Johnson, he refuses to say how he voted despite many people questioning him on it. I personally believe he voted in favour of the proposal.

All you need is 15% support from the members and you can call a special meeting to discuss your problem. Then you can try to spill the whole board, then stack it with supporters of an independently proven to be minority opinion. Once that is done you can manipulate all those directors to ignore the evidence and re-do the last 2 - 3 years of policy review to see if you get a different outcome.

What are you talking about? The board simply needs to have another vote.

 

[DomainShield]

I don't think many are going to buy this argument. Pay twice because you deem $70 to be not very much?

MelbourneIT told people to vote "yes" and the second survey was completely lacking because the main issue is increased cost for registrants.

Seriously, outside of about 40 odd people who own portfolios with more than 500 domain names the cost argument is a non starter, which is why no one is talking about it. I realise that on a personal level it would be annoying for you but the majority of people do not care that you have so many domains in fact they would love to impose extra costs on the people who they think are "hording" all the good domains.

Personally I don't want to impose extra costs on my customers (who I have previously profited from by encouraging them to horde them) but I do see a long term benefit of them being able to sell their .au domains together or separately to their .com.au domains in the future.

We have an opportunity in the next few months to shape the policy around .au domains, so lets stop discussing perceived problems around the yes/no vote and start working out how future policy or grandfathering rights could benefit portfolio holders.

On the cost argument you also should consider that you paid between $400 and $125 000 for a good domain on the drops and you are going to get the .au rights for only $20... so start doing the maths on who is going to benefit from direct registrations in the future. Remember that all Australians will probably be eligible for a .au domain so it means you are going to have a larger market and more liquidity to move those .au domains.

Simon Johnson, he refuses to say how he voted despite many people questioning him on it. I personally believe he voted in favour of the proposal.

I personally think they all voted in favour of it. I also think they did that because they are smart enough and brave enough to realise that the change is going to be painful but the end result is a good result for everyone.

I also think they are smart enough to not talk about their voting habits because they cannot afford to spend hours trying to explain the future benefits to everyone individually once they have been singled out as a spokesperson.

Within the digital community there are certain buzzwords which are currently popular like "disruption" and "innovation" those buzzwords are equally unpopular with the Taxi Association and owners of Dick Smith stores. The good news for domainers is that the "disruptive and innovative" .au domain extension is going to be offered up to current license holders first, so you are not going to get Ubered or Amazoned out of existence in 2018 as long as you where smart enough to stockpile some cash.

What are you talking about? The board simply needs to have another vote.

The Board has met a record number of time in the last 12 months so they have had ample opportunity to vote again if they wanted to. I think you would need to force them to vote again because they don't seem to want to do it on their own.

 

[Shane]

On the cost argument you also should consider that you paid between $400 and $125 000 for a good domain on the drops and you are going to get the .au rights for only $20... so start doing the maths on who is going to benefit from direct registrations in the future. Remember that all Australians will probably be eligible for a .au domain so it means you are going to have a larger market and more liquidity to move those .au domains.

That's assuming existing com.au holders are given rights. What if it goes to the holder with the earliest create date, as has been suggested?

That potentially means the com.au you paid thousands of dollars for on the drops is going to lose value because the net.au holder will pick up the .au for $20.

Not only that, but if someone builds out a site on the .au version of your domain (and assuming they're doing so legitimately) this could affect your business as a result of confusion. Lost website traffic, lost emails, confusion all over...

I personally think they all voted in favour of it. I also think they did that because they are smart enough and brave enough to realise that the change is going to be painful but the end result is a good result for everyone.

Why do you think it's a good result for everyone? What's the benefit for the typical small business owner? Or large company for that matter?

The only possible benefit I can see is having a shorter domain. If businesses want to go down that path of using the .au (rather than just having it as a defensive registration) they'll incur thousands of dollars in costs for changing their website, reprinting stationery, changing signage and marketing etc etc.

That shorter domain name would have to provide a big benefit to justify all those costs. Would it though? I doubt it.

Within the digital community there are certain buzzwords which are currently popular like "disruption" and "innovation" those buzzwords are equally unpopular with the Taxi Association and owners of Dick Smith stores. The good news for domainers is that the "disruptive and innovative" .au domain extension is going to be offered up to current license holders first, so you are not going to get Ubered or Amazoned out of existence in 2018 as long as you where smart enough to stockpile some cash.

How is dropping .com from a domain name innovative? Not every change is an innovation.

For me personally, direct registrations aren't going to change my life. I'm not a domainer. I don't have a massive portfolio. For my businesses, I have the com.au and net.au for any important domains, so in theory we shouldn't miss out.

I certainly wouldn't be changing to the .au, but I would register them defensively. That cost certainly wouldn't change my life, but it would annoy me having to pay any amount of money that is unnecessary.

How are business owners and consumers really benefiting?

 

[snoopy]

Seriously, outside of about 40 odd people who own portfolios with more than 500 domain names the cost argument is a non starter, which is why no one is talking about it. I realise that on a personal level it would be annoying for you but the majority of people do not care that you have so many domains in fact they would love to impose extra costs on the people who they think are "hording" all the good domains.

I own 5 .com.au domains and my wife owns 10. I don't think many would want to pay twice for basically the same domain.

Personally I don't want to impose extra costs on my customers (who I have previously profited from by encouraging them to horde them) but I do see a long term benefit of them being able to sell their .au domains together or separately to their .com.au domains in the future.

Of course not, because you are "a humanist who is trying to make peace with living in a capitalist society" rather than a guy trying to double up on registration revenue.