Government Slammed in Parliament over .AU proposal

[snoopy]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
House of Representatives
Ed Husic, Federal Member for Chifley

MONDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2018




http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo..._2018_02_26_5915.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

 

[Jimboot]

Sweet!

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Nice coverage.

Nice work whoever got it on his desk.

 

[DomainNames]

time to wake up...The scam is over...

FYI a lot of Government now has the facts.... They know a lot... and they can dig better than anyone for information if needed.

...auDA and some in supply got too greedy....

A lot of people and Government are waking up.

Unfortunately if Mitch Fifield does not start to listen and act he may lose his job over this also.... That is how politics works...

IF I was an auDA Board Member knew something was wrong at auDA, the auDA Foundation or with past or current process I would definitely be saying so now on the minutes.... why go down with the ship? That would be a major mistake and could lead to serious problems.

Too much evidence is mounting... wait until a Senate Enquiry.......

Does everyone know the buck stops with the Commonwealth Government yet? They actually have the overriding powers and responsibility over management of the .au name space. Just ask DoCA and Icann.

 

[Jimboot]

Lots more activity today. We have another targeted ad campaign starting, press releases went out yesterday. At least 3 more stories in the works. I also published this yesterday https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/auda-has-consulted-business-300-mill-au-tax-jim-stewart/ I have contacted every major business organisation in the country and they knew nothing about it. They do now.
AUDA has not consulted with business on $300 mill .AU tax

• Published on Published onFebruary 28, 2018

• 

• 
  I asked the question of AUDA why is the Peak Business Body representative seat empty? Their response "The Policy Review Panel extended invitations to a number of peak business groups to nominate a representative for the Panel. Consultation with these groups continues."
  
  From the policy review panel first meeting 27th September 2017
  
  
  
  
  From Senator Fifield's office today
  
  
  
  
  Not "Multi-stakeholder" Panel
  
  The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has confirmed to me they have not been consulted on this change. So has the NSW Chamber. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce & Industry has told me they are "looking into it" but there is nothing on their web site about it either. Same with COSBOA & CEDA. None of Australia's peak business bodies have anything on their websites about it and business owners are about to be slugged with a $300 million dollar AUDA tax.
  Have I left any major business member organisation out? Please let me know.
  
  So if AUDA did not consult with Australia's peak industry bodies on this change, who did they consult with?
  
  Any suggestions? Does anyone know? How would you conduct a survey of every business owner in Australia? I think we should do one.
  
  We are all AUDA customers. How do you find out what your customers want?
  
  My original video on the subject if you are confused.

 

[ttfan]

I think some mention, and perhaps a sample, of the clearly biassed survey/poll (it only outlined advantages) would be useful too, as this played a major role in the justification by auda to introduce .au registrations.

 

[DomainNames]

Lots more activity today. We have another targeted ad campaign starting, press releases went out yesterday. At least 3 more stories in the works. I also published this yesterday https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/auda-has-consulted-business-300-mill-au-tax-jim-stewart/ I have contacted every major business organisation in the country and they knew nothing about it. They do now.
AUDA has not consulted with business on $300 mill .AU tax

• Published on Published onFebruary 28, 2018

• 

• 
  I asked the question of AUDA why is the Peak Business Body representative seat empty? Their response "The Policy Review Panel extended invitations to a number of peak business groups to nominate a representative for the Panel. Consultation with these groups continues."
  
  From the policy review panel first meeting 27th September 2017
  
  
  
  
  From Senator Fifield's office today
  
  
  
  
  Not "Multi-stakeholder" Panel
  
  The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has confirmed to me they have not been consulted on this change. So has the NSW Chamber. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce & Industry has told me they are "looking into it" but there is nothing on their web site about it either. Same with COSBOA & CEDA. None of Australia's peak business bodies have anything on their websites about it and business owners are about to be slugged with a $300 million dollar AUDA tax.
  Have I left any major business member organisation out? Please let me know.
  
  So if AUDA did not consult with Australia's peak industry bodies on this change, who did they consult with?
  
  Any suggestions? Does anyone know? How would you conduct a survey of every business owner in Australia? I think we should do one.
  
  We are all AUDA customers. How do you find out what your customers want?
  
  My original video on the subject if you are confused.

auDA has been ripping people off for years with this secret auDA and auDA Foundation compulsory taxes and fees.

We have voted in new Board members time and time again but has the accountability and transparency improved? No it has gotten worse than ever.

• They record all of the auDA Public meetings then refuse to let anyone listen or have access to it?
• They refuse to set up streaming of the meeting so people wan watch it or listen later?
  
• Why are the hiding the auDA PRP powerpoint suggestions and dancing in front of the screen so people cannot even write it down or take photos of the suggestions?

The whole thing has been manipulated. It is a scam.

Now more than ever I believe it needs to be taken over and wound up.

No excuses any more for such bad management of the .au name space.

It is not working and it is not improving.... we where all sold a dummy.

 

[snoopy]

We have voted in new Board members time and time again but has the accountability and transparency improved? No it has gotten worse than ever.

Supply side still controls the board through supply directors and "independents". So at the moment the majority of auDA members are represented by only 3 seats.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So the peak industry body panel position for the largest stake holder group (small business owners) has been left vacant. By design or ineptitude?

The biggest group of domain holders is not being represented. A fair minded panel should find this an issue.

How can this process be taken seriously without proper consultation and representation?

 

[snoopy]

For anyone wishing to contact Mr Husic the best number (canberra office) is (02) 6277 4488

You can also leave a message here on his website,

http://www.edhusic.com/contact-us/

 

[DomainShield]

Supply side still controls the board through supply directors and "independents". So at the moment the majority of auDA members are represented by only 3 seats.

Are you kidding? There are no registrars on the board. Supply is literally being represented via resellers and a lawyer, plus we have no control over independents. As you point out 3 of 11 seats are backed by Domainers who represent an estimated 5% of the name space, it seems to be that the inequality exists in the opposite direction so I would not be drawing attention to it.

 

[DomainShield]

So the peak industry body panel position for the largest stake holder group (small business owners) has been left vacant. By design or ineptitude?

The biggest group of domain holders is not being represented. A fair minded panel should find this an issue.

How can this process be taken seriously without proper consultation and representation?

At the Melbourne public meeting I recall Paul from the ACCC saying that he reached out to the bodies who declined to be involved for one of two reasons 1) Not interested/too much time 2) Concerns over confidentiality requirements for panelists.

 

[DomainShield]

I have a question over representation and calls to email all current registrants... has anyone considered how one would ask potential or even previously interested registrants? The current setup of .au domains favours businesses over all other internet users. What about the 27 odd million Australians who do not have an ABN or ACN? Do they deserve to be contacted about this potential opportunity for them?

The way I see it auDA cannot realistically contact them all.

Even though you guys are criticizing the process for a lack of involvement, it can be argued that compared to previous panels the turnout and number of submissions is higher than every before and they seem to be doing a very good job in that regard.

 

[DomainNames]

Everyone knows the surveys where rigged before.

At the Melbourne public meeting I recall Paul from the ACCC saying that he reached out to the bodies who declined to be involved for one of two reasons 1) Not interested/too much time 2) Concerns over confidentiality requirements for panelists.

Maybe worried they could get someone on the PRP opposed to some things... then what do they do?

 

[DomainShield]

Lots more activity today. We have another targeted ad campaign starting, press releases went out yesterday. At least 3 more stories in the works. I also published this yesterday https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/auda-has-consulted-business-300-mill-au-tax-jim-stewart/

Why do you call it a TAX? I found two definitions for tax...
1) a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
2) a strain or heavy demand.

Since the opportunity to register a .au domain is not compulsory and it is also not levied by the government it cannot be number 1) and since the cost of a .au (which is optional) is less than what an average small business spends on paper clips I cannot see it being number 2)

I have contacted every major business organisation in the country and they knew nothing about it. They do now.

Where where you in 2015 when this discussion was relevant? It would have been seriously beneficial back then to have more feedback.

AUDA has not consulted with business on $300 mill .AU tax
Not "Multi-stakeholder" Panel

I don't think anyone, even auDA would disagree with you that is it unfortunate. Broader panel involvement would have been good but it was not like there was no opportunity given... it was there and no one took it.

So if AUDA did not consult with Australia's peak industry bodies on this change, who did they consult with?

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  Any suggestions? Does anyone know? How would you conduct a survey of every business owner in Australia? I think we should do one.
  
  We are all AUDA customers. How do you find out what your customers want?
  
  My original video on the subject if you are confused.

auDA have had more feedback and from more sources on this than ever before.
They are never going to get feedback from everyone but they are however required and expected to give everyone an opportunity.
So unless you can give proof of a group being deliberately excluded who clearly wanted to be included then you don't really have anything to throw at them.

 

[Lemon]

Supply side still controls the board through supply directors and "independents"

The current Independent Board members are highly professional people who sit and have sat on a number of Boards at all levels. I think bringing their integrity into question is treading on dangerous ground especially in a public forum.

 

[DomainShield]

Everyone knows the surveys where rigged before.

That is not true, as I said before the Board listened to you on that and did their own survey. Same result.

The problem is that if you just ask a random person if they want an easy to register recognisable domain then they will generally say yes.
Random people want easy and they want usable... which .com.au and .id.au are not.

If you asked random people if they want to slug Australian small businesses by burdening them with a $300 million tax then they will generally say no. (Please note that this is not a true statement and is an example of the misleading questions being asked by some)
Random people don't want to hurt small businesses.

If you asked the more complicated questions the average person in the street rolls their eyes and or falls asleep. At the end of the discussion when you wrap it up with "So it will cost the average company about $20 and will allow everyone else equal access to usable domain names" they say two things 1) Yes that sounds like an okay idea and 2) Why on earth did you waste an hour of my time explaining all that over $20?

Maybe worried they could get someone on the PRP opposed to some things... then what do they do?

5 of the 6 panelists are against direct registrations... how much more opposed to it would you like them to be?

 

[DomainNames]

5 of the 6 panelists are against direct registrations... how much more opposed to it would you like them to be?

Who are they and can you share their public posts and submissions against it?

What that shows is the process is rigged.....They know it is wrong yet someone at auDA (?) wants them to do it anyway...? Does that make any sense at all?

Big changes are coming soon at auDA... not much use debating it anymore... the last nail is going in soon by Government.

Mitch Fifled may even be losing his portfolio / job over auDA.

 

[Rhythm]

Ed Husic is as clueless as he looks if he has resorted to reading internet comments in parliament

 

[DomainShield]

Who are they and can you share their public posts and submissions against it?

Do you seriously want me to cut and paste Luke Summers, John Swinson, the ACCC and ACCANs submissions? I thought it was clear, lt was even stated at the start of the presentation that they all made submissions against it. Did you miss the start?

What that shows is the process is rigged.....They know it is wrong yet someone at auDA (?) wants them to do it anyway...? Does that make any sense at all?

If it is rigged, then it is rigged against direct registration so why are you shouting about it? You should be happy? Why throw stones?

Big changes are coming soon at auDA... not much use debating it anymore... the last nail is going in soon by Government.

Mitch Fifled may even be losing his portfolio / job over auDA.

If that is true (and for all I know it could be) then why all the shouting... just leave it up to the government.
In the mean time I am going to assume that it is business as usual and make a submission before the 4th.