auDA ends exclusive negotiations with AusRegistry...

[findtim]

no comment ! but nobody has posted this so i just have to withOUT any intent....OK

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit organization " wikipedia

 

[JackBeNimble]

"A not-for-profit can make a profit, but any profit made must be used for its purpose(s). It can keep profits as long as there is a genuine reason for this and it is to do with its purpose. For example, a good reason to keep profits may be to save up for starting a new project, building new infrastructure or accumulating a reserve so it continues to be sustainable."

http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Register_my_charity/Who_can_register/What_is_NFP/ACNC/Reg/NFP.aspx

AUDA has been stacking cash away for years with no purpose, business has been paying double what they should be.

I would also suggest that some of that money has been improperly used in the past which is the basis of the PPB Report.

Since auDA won't say what the money is for - we don't know there's NOT a reason they're keeping it.
It's possible (unlikely, but possible) Alifas is only a temporary registry operator while they save up over the next (assume) 5 years then auDA turns registry.

Unless Cameron/The Board comes out and says "This money is here only to gain interest" then the assumption has to be there's a reason for it.


Re: PPB - potentially correct but on the flip side of this - if the PPB report was showing improperly used funds where are the results/law suits?
I would suggest they found nothing and won't release information to save face.

 

[snoopy]

Since auDA won't say what the money is for - we don't know there's NOT a reason they're keeping it.

They stated in their government submission they want more money in the bank is case they get sued (as well as the risk of cyber attacks), the only chance of a lawsuit of that size would be over direct registrations but it would bankrupt them anyway if they lost a class action.

It's possible (unlikely, but possible) Alifas is only a temporary registry operator while they save up over the next (assume) 5 years then auDA turns registry.

I absolutely believe that is the real reason, they still want to run the registry. AUDA running the registry would be a disaster for consumers in my view in terms of higher cost. It is just empire building by AUDA, they want to say they took AUDA from X to 2X, 3X. I think they want $50 million - $100 million in the bank.

For the moment the next best thing to running the registry is taking most of the profitability by not passing on the price discount fully to Australian consumers.

Even in the CEO's SGM presentation he referenced running EBERO's (emergency banned registries for other tlds). AUDA has the same issue as Nominet, they think they need to make more money all the time when they are actually a not for profit.

Re: PPB - potentially correct but on the flip side of this - if the PPB report was showing improperly used funds where are the results/law suits? I would suggest they found nothing and won't release information to save face.

If they found nothing it would get released in my view.

 

[JackBeNimble]

They stated in their government submission they want more money in the bank is case they get sued (as well as the risk of cyber attacks), the only chance of a lawsuit of that size would be over direct registrations but it would bankrupt them anyway if they lost a class action.

I absolutely believe that is the real reason, they still want to run the registry. AUDA running the registry would be a disaster for consumers in my view in terms of higher cost. It is just empire building by AUDA, they want to say they took AUDA from X to 2X, 3X. I think they want $50 million - $100 million in the bank.

For the moment the next best thing to running the registry is taking most of the profitability by not passing on the price discount fully to Australian consumers.

Even in the CEO's SGM presentation he referenced running EBERO's (emergency banned registries for other tlds). AUDA has the same issue as Nominet, they think they need to make more money all the time when they are actually a not for profit.

Unfortunately then - it means they have justified having the money in the bank.
It might be bullshit - but it satisfies the requirements to having it.

If they found nothing it would get released in my view.

Given they were out for Chris Dispain's blood they would look awfully silly if they didn't find anything...

 

[DomainNames]

Repeat after me: "Not-For-Profit does not mean no money in the bank"
That money sitting in the bank isn't profiting anyone - if it was - it would already be gone (Which, ironically - some people here would be OK with because then there's no money in the bank)


If auDA came out and said "Wholesale cost is now 0.75 per year" there would STILL be complaints here.

Hilarious.

 

[JackBeNimble]

Hilarious.

That's a funny way to spell accurate.

 

[DomainNames]

That's a funny way to spell accurate.

Maybe change your name to Seinfeld or Basel.. Keep them coming....they really are funny.

Thank you..it does bring a smile to some of us to watch the continued spin...

 

[findtim]

attack the subject not the person.

we have in the past so many good discussions ruined by personal attacks instead of subject focus. ( those were dark days ! )

tim

 

[Horshack]

http://www.acnc.gov.au/notforprofit

 

[JackBeNimble]

http://www.acnc.gov.au/notforprofit

Making a profit
A not-for-profit can make a profit, but any profit made must be used for its purpose(s). It can keep profits as long as there is a genuine reason for this and it is to do with its purpose. For example, a good reason to keep profits may be to save up for starting a new project, building new infrastructure or accumulating a reserve so it continues to be sustainable.

Bolding is mine.
This would be what auDA are using the profit for per Snoopy's post above.

They stated in their government submission they want more money in the bank is case they get sued (as well as the risk of cyber attacks), the only chance of a lawsuit of that size would be over direct registrations but it would bankrupt them anyway if they lost a class action.

ETA:
I'm not suggesting this is OK - just that it makes sense how they're sustaining a profit.
Whether that's what they are intending to use it for or not is a different story that only auDA can answer.

 

[Horshack]

Yep a perfect example of this is HBF which is the main private insurer in WA. It is not for profit but has accumulated $1.8 billion in assets and still wants to raise prices again this year as do all the insurers.

 

[findtim]

speaking as "tim the web designer, small business, self employed owner" i have never had an issue with auda having money in the bank.
i'm going to ignore the comment of " incase we get sued" , right or wrong its not the point.
the point is that we all rely on audas stability, in every business there are unforeseen tough times, i know this in my business, the highs and lows.

so given the scope of auda $20mil is nothing, i really don't know why we are wasting our breath on this?

a perfect example of this is HBF.............

i take your point, maybe medical and domain names might have a different risk factor that doesn't allow for insurance for health businesses? who knows? not me ! the point is auda has a big responsibility to ME as a domain name "registrant" and as that i want them to be financially viable to maintain that position.

i think the not for profit conversation is mute ! its not in my top 10 list !
tim

 

[snoopy]

so given the scope of auda $20mil is nothing, i really don't know why we are wasting our breath on this?

How is $20million "nothing"? This is an organisation with 14 employees, they do not need $20million in the bank, the "tough times" will never come for AUDA because they collect those $4.85 fees come rain or shine.

I'm curious at what point will AUDA say we have enough money in the bank? I believe it will never come and domain registrants are paying for this. Is $50million enough, $100 million? It will get to that level because AUDA is now grabbing most of the registry profits instead of passing it on to consumers.

Do you believe AUDA still wants to run the registry? I believe this is what it is all about personally, they want all that money.

 

[findtim]

Do you believe AUDA still wants to run the registry?

i think "church and state" has always been the case, i personally can't see any reason to deviate from that.

tim

 

[DomainNames]

auDA cannot keep money to run the wholesale registry so that is not an excuse or a reason. They are not allowed to run the registry under the current auDA Constitution......Are they? They said they cant they learn't at the time of the SGM from more advice.

You cannot save up $21 million of .au domain name owner fees and charges for something you are not allowed under the current auDA constitution. Maybe digging themselves a bigger corporate, member, DoCA review watch and nfp hole doing that..

Remember the SGM which woke up a few people on that point and stopped them from proceeding with auDA HQ and them as wholesale registry also?

Had they been allowed to do it under the auDA Constitution they would have done it as they had planned.

Not sure who advised them they could do it at the time but they really looked a bit silly having it pointed out to them by people they could not.

 

[findtim]

auDA cannot keep money to run the wholesale registry.......

lets be clear thats not what i said.
tim

 

[DomainNames]

lets be clear thats not what i said.
tim

not quoting you but is this your understanding also?

The fun and games with auDA needs to stop. They can either run the wholesale registry also or they cannot and they should not be afraid to make it clear either way.

If they want to run it they need to change the auDA Constitution I was told. If I am wrong I hope someone does back it up and say they can without doing this.

The original Government letter actually had them doing it, it did allow for subcontracting under certain requirements being met .. but auDA perhaps made a technical mistake in the Constitution at the start...

I think that was pointed out to them fairly clearly at the SGM by someone who wanted to retain the wholesale registry this technical issue was a spanner in the works..and here we are.

 

[Lemon]

not quoting you but is this your understanding also?

The fun and games with auDA needs to stop. They can either run the wholesale registry also or they cannot and they should not be afraid to make it clear either way.

If they want to run it they need to change the auDA Constitution I was told. If I am wrong I hope someone does back it up and say they can without doing this.

The original Government letter actually had them doing it, it did allow for subcontracting under certain requirements being met .. but auDA perhaps made a technical mistake in the Constitution at the start...

I think that was pointed out to them fairly clearly at the SGM by someone who wanted to retain the wholesale registry this technical issue was a spanner in the works..and here we are.

Can you actually point out in the constitution where it says that they are not allowed to be the Registry

 

[snoopy]

Can you actually point out in the constitution where it says that they are not allowed to be the Registry

Probably a grey area reading the objects (below). Pretty clear though that AUDA needs to go to members before making dramatic changes like this, i.e. have a vote and change the constitution, do it properly. Given we've now gone out to tender and it seem like AUDA is still going to take most of the money I think AUDA having control of the registry would result in very bad outcomes (e.g. prices going up/mismanagement).

I don't think anyone wants a not 100% stable organisation running the registry from day to day. It probably makes no sense either versus outsourcing to an organisation who runs a large number of registries and can do it for far less.

 

[DomainNames]

Can you actually point out in the constitution where it says that they are not allowed to be the Registry

...Ask auDA and ask Ausregistry. I am sure they can inform you what they think.. look around the time of the SGM for hints..