snoopy
Top Contributor
Pretty sure there is supposed to be another round.
auDA to Cripple Business
- Thread starter snoopy
- Start date
Pretty sure there is supposed to be another round.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Tell them to ask auDA for the Audio and Presentations from Public meetings Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane.
They have a right to get it!
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/
3.2 Activities
Without reducing the effect of clause 4, auDA will see to achieve its principal purposes as set out in clause 3.1 through:
a. ensuring the continued operational stability of the domain name system in Australia;
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
d. the promotion of fair trading;
e. the promotion of consumer protection;
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;
g. ensuring its operations produce timely outputs which are relevant to the needs of the Australian Internet Community.
(Amended by Special Resolution, 14 August 2006)
Without reducing the effect of clause 4, auDA will see to achieve its principal purposes as set out in clause 3.1 through:
a. ensuring the continued operational stability of the domain name system in Australia;
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
d. the promotion of fair trading;
e. the promotion of consumer protection;
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;
g. ensuring its operations produce timely outputs which are relevant to the needs of the Australian Internet Community.
(Amended by Special Resolution, 14 August 2006)
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Good post which continues to raise questions, a lot of feedback and comments of concern in auDA process and their management of the .au name space:
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/businesses-argue-consultation-on-au-domains-ignored-them/
"... a number of stakeholders have told SmartCompany that while they are keen to weigh in on the changes, they are concerned small businesses do not know they are on the table in the first place."
“All this stuff is going to majorly affect people, and they simply don’t know about it,” one business owner told SmartCompany last week.
"Others raised concerns that auDA’s 2017 Policy Review panel, which has been holding consultation on the possibility of .au domains, was supposed to have appointed a “peak business body representative” to the panel, but this was never done."
"Those worried about the process say this indicates that smaller businesses will not have their voices heard about how the new web address would affect SMEs, who might have to fight it out to even claim their equivalent web address if their “com.au” site were to fall into a pool of “contested” addresses."
"business owners expressed confusion about the policy idea, saying they had never even heard of the possibility that a new domain structure could be introduced in Australia."
"Like so many others we’ve spent a lot on our .com.au branding etc. It costs a lot to do it all not just a small extra cost,” said one comment writer.
"Other business owners and stakeholders have contacted SmartCompany over the past week with concerns that the way the policy idea has been discussed by auDA has been “really, really unfair”."
"those in the business community had been treated like “fools” during the process, observing that public hearings on the issue held by auDA haven’t included many business voices."
"Others raised concerns that auDA’s 2017 Policy Review panel, which has been holding consultation on the possibility of .au domains, was supposed to have appointed a “peak business body representative” to the panel, but this was never done."
"Those worried about the process say this indicates that smaller businesses will not have their voices heard about how the new web address would affect SMEs, who might have to fight it out to even claim their equivalent web address if their “com.au” site were to fall into a pool of “contested” addresses."
"business owners expressed confusion about the policy idea, saying they had never even heard of the possibility that a new domain structure could be introduced in Australia."
"Like so many others we’ve spent a lot on our .com.au branding etc. It costs a lot to do it all not just a small extra cost,” said one comment writer.
"Other business owners and stakeholders have contacted SmartCompany over the past week with concerns that the way the policy idea has been discussed by auDA has been “really, really unfair”."
"those in the business community had been treated like “fools” during the process, observing that public hearings on the issue held by auDA haven’t included many business voices."
Last edited:
snoopy
Top Contributor
Latest story, congrats to Brett Fenton and Jim for speaking up.
Seems strange to me that neither the PRP Chair or the AUDA chair are saying a word?
https://www.technologydecisions.com...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Seems strange to me that neither the PRP Chair or the AUDA chair are saying a word?
https://www.technologydecisions.com...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Let's have a think and look at facts and data and quotes and statements made:
1. Brett Fenton has told people "Melbourne IT will be out of domain names in 2 years". Brett is this true you have told people this or not or please feel free to correct it if it is wrong you have said this?
2. Brett Fenton has highly recommended this new competing .au is brought in asap and only 6 months rights for people to take it if they have reserved rights... there have been statements "LET'S PUSH FOR THIS CHANGE"
3. Does this look like an effort to profit as fast as is possible, maximise the value of the Melbourne IT domain name business and sell it off?
4. Does Melbourne IT or Brett Fenton really care If the value of .au domain names and the affected Australian businesses after they have sold them and made their profit?
Brett I am happy to have a public debate with you. I have a lot of quotes and a lot of data, some of it from you and Melbourne IT I can quote.
Destroying and "eroding" the value of existing .au names and business is bad for the Australian economy and is is not helping anyone... It will not help you and it will not help Melbourne IT.
People have too much data now.
What you need to be doing is securing what we all have not " Eroding" it for some companies fast profits before they exit the .au domain name space.
1. Brett Fenton has told people "Melbourne IT will be out of domain names in 2 years". Brett is this true you have told people this or not or please feel free to correct it if it is wrong you have said this?
2. Brett Fenton has highly recommended this new competing .au is brought in asap and only 6 months rights for people to take it if they have reserved rights... there have been statements "LET'S PUSH FOR THIS CHANGE"
3. Does this look like an effort to profit as fast as is possible, maximise the value of the Melbourne IT domain name business and sell it off?
4. Does Melbourne IT or Brett Fenton really care If the value of .au domain names and the affected Australian businesses after they have sold them and made their profit?
Brett I am happy to have a public debate with you. I have a lot of quotes and a lot of data, some of it from you and Melbourne IT I can quote.
Destroying and "eroding" the value of existing .au names and business is bad for the Australian economy and is is not helping anyone... It will not help you and it will not help Melbourne IT.
People have too much data now.
What you need to be doing is securing what we all have not " Eroding" it for some companies fast profits before they exit the .au domain name space.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6375139129440628736/
" Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au. The present naming structure has allowed for a stricter policy to apply to .com.au for businesses, whilst also supporting less stringent requirements for non-profit organisations via .org.au, or individuals via .id.au. The naming structure also provides an indication to the user of the nature of the licence holder. This contrasts with the .com and .org domains, where anyone is allowed to register in either of these spaces, and the distinction is no longer meaningful. [ ... ] The existing second level domains are widely recognised in Australian and internationally. A key drawback of introducing names directly at the top level could be damage to the businesses of existing .com.au registrants, when registrations at the top level are made to trade off their reputations. There would be a significant cost to businesses to try to protect their brands in the top level without any specific gain from a consumer perspective. " - Bruce Tonkin, CTO, Melbourne IT. May 2007 Full submission to auDA:
____________________________________________________________
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/tonkin26.txt
" Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au. The present naming structure has allowed for a stricter policy to apply to .com.au for businesses, whilst also supporting less stringent requirements for non-profit organisations via .org.au, or individuals via .id.au. The naming structure also provides an indication to the user of the nature of the licence holder. This contrasts with the .com and .org domains, where anyone is allowed to register in either of these spaces, and the distinction is no longer meaningful. [ ... ] The existing second level domains are widely recognised in Australian and internationally. A key drawback of introducing names directly at the top level could be damage to the businesses of existing .com.au registrants, when registrations at the top level are made to trade off their reputations. There would be a significant cost to businesses to try to protect their brands in the top level without any specific gain from a consumer perspective. " - Bruce Tonkin, CTO, Melbourne IT. May 2007 Full submission to auDA:
____________________________________________________________
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/tonkin26.txt
QUOTE FROM BRUCE TONKIN MELBOURNE IT
"From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2007 7:40 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Melbourne IT response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel issues
paper, May 2007
Hello Jo,
Please find below Melbourne IT's response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel, issues paper of May 2007.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chief Technology Officer
Melbourne IT
(1) Should .au be opened up to direct registrations (e.g domainname.au)? If yes, should there be any policy rules, and if so what rules?
Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au.
The present naming structure has allowed for a stricter policy to apply to .com.au for businesses,
whilst also supporting less stringent requirements for non-profit organisations via .org.au, or
individuals via .id.au. The naming structure also provides an indication to the user of the nature
of the licence holder. This contrasts with the .com and .org domains, where anyone is allowed to
register in either of these spaces, and the distinction is no longer meaningful.
There is also the possibility for multiple registrants to use the same name, whilst still distinguishing their nature. For example a name like flinders.com.au used by Flinders Camping is easily distinguished from flinders.edu.au which is the University. This provides more opportunity for registrants to get a simple and easy to remember domain name, and takes advantage of the hierarchy which is a key feature of the DNS.
The existing second level domains are widely recognised in Australian and internationally. A key drawback of introducing names directly at the top level could be damage to the businesses of existing.com.au registrants, when registrations at the top level are made to trade off their reputations. There would be a significant cost to businesses to try to protect their brands in the top level without any specific gain from a consumer perspective.
(2) Should the policy rules for asn.au, com.au, id.au, net.au and org.au
be changed? If yes, what changes should be made?
Melbourne IT supports the current policy rules which have already been through regular stages of evolution, and have provided a stable environment for the growth and use of the .au domain name space.
(3) Should registrants be allowed to sell their .au domain names?
Melbourne IT is in favour of registrants being able to transfer their domain name licence to another eligible party.
"From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2007 7:40 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Melbourne IT response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel issues
paper, May 2007
Hello Jo,
Please find below Melbourne IT's response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel, issues paper of May 2007.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chief Technology Officer
Melbourne IT
(1) Should .au be opened up to direct registrations (e.g domainname.au)? If yes, should there be any policy rules, and if so what rules?
Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au.
The present naming structure has allowed for a stricter policy to apply to .com.au for businesses,
whilst also supporting less stringent requirements for non-profit organisations via .org.au, or
individuals via .id.au. The naming structure also provides an indication to the user of the nature
of the licence holder. This contrasts with the .com and .org domains, where anyone is allowed to
register in either of these spaces, and the distinction is no longer meaningful.
There is also the possibility for multiple registrants to use the same name, whilst still distinguishing their nature. For example a name like flinders.com.au used by Flinders Camping is easily distinguished from flinders.edu.au which is the University. This provides more opportunity for registrants to get a simple and easy to remember domain name, and takes advantage of the hierarchy which is a key feature of the DNS.
The existing second level domains are widely recognised in Australian and internationally. A key drawback of introducing names directly at the top level could be damage to the businesses of existing.com.au registrants, when registrations at the top level are made to trade off their reputations. There would be a significant cost to businesses to try to protect their brands in the top level without any specific gain from a consumer perspective.
(2) Should the policy rules for asn.au, com.au, id.au, net.au and org.au
be changed? If yes, what changes should be made?
Melbourne IT supports the current policy rules which have already been through regular stages of evolution, and have provided a stable environment for the growth and use of the .au domain name space.
(3) Should registrants be allowed to sell their .au domain names?
Melbourne IT is in favour of registrants being able to transfer their domain name licence to another eligible party.
Last edited:
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Do they care?
Suzabro
Administrator
@DomainNames can you please use quoting as per https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/how-to-use-the-quote-function.11789/#post-91288
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Sure.. we may be getting a bit technical now? I have sent you a PM.
.. I am expecting some people to lodge complaints to try and mute us we are quoting hard facts and data they are trying to keep hidden..
I think anyone can see it is quoted and it is very obvious when I quote?
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/tonkin26.txt
"QUOTE FROM BRUCE TONKIN MELBOURNE IT ............"
"Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au."
I will try the format requested but have not done it before."QUOTE FROM BRUCE TONKIN MELBOURNE IT ............"
"Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au."
Let's not succumb to pressure to mute or censor people here this is a very important issue some are trying very hard to downplay and keep quiet... The quotes and facts speak for themselves but very few people know them. That is what we are doing.. Letting know the facts.Expect a lot of auDA public news next week and a major Parliament speech announcement perhaps...
Check any complaints which I did say you would be getting who are trying to mute the facts..
Last edited:
Suzabro
Administrator
DomainNames said:
@DomainNames all we are asking is that you keep your posts readable. It isn't always clear who is saying what with your posts, especially for those who are skimming.
The formatting on posts is much clearer when using the native quoting functionality. You can use the "More Options > Preview" to see what it looks like before you post.
Let me know when Stewart Media walks the talk and buys stewartmedia.com and Stewart.Media
DomainNames
Top Contributor
I think they have walked the talk to date so far by supporting the request to use .Com.Au by auDA, .au Whole Registry, Registrars, Resellers and Australia...
https://stewartmedia.com.au/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/auda-urges-australian-businesses-to-back-au/
auDA Urges Australian Business to back .Com.Au
auDA.org.au job is also to not damage the existing .au namespace reputation. They are now doing that.
Lemon
Top Contributor
Another link to an old article. 2004
I think Bob Dylan said it well in his song The Times They Are A-Changin'
Written in 1964
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Yes I agree....People and Commonwealth Government are waking up now to the scam and mismanagement... The times they are a changing....
Ian Halson ( Lemon) loses support and auDA Board Director position by overwhelming demand for change....
Old auDA Board members who pushed for another .au mostly gone as auDA members wake up demanding change, proper consultation, accountability and transparency from auDA process....
The highest member vote count in the history of auDA has shown massive majority support for Nicole Murdoch and Ned O'Meara.
It is time for others at auDA and on the Board to now listen to the demand members who votes in the vast majority. Time for those working against existing and potential .au namespace domain name registrants consumers to listen and take notice.
The Government review WILL bring out a lot of hidden issues but this is a good start.
- https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/...ed-http-www-grumpy-com-au-our-platform.11685/
- https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/seo/smes-demand-answers-auda-introduction-au-domain/
- https://www.smartcompany.com.au/tec...resses-experts-warn-domain-changes-hurt-smes/
- https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/businesses-argue-consultation-on-au-domains-ignored-them/
- https://www.smartcompany.com.au/tec...-government-sorts-out-au-domain-introduction/
- https://www.channelnews.com.au/australians-said-to-have-been-ripped-off-on-domain-names-since-2008/
- https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/review-australias-au-domain-management
- etc.....
Last edited:
Lemon
Top Contributor
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
.. It takes courage.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
More likely it will be some people at auDA or auDA themselves who will be fired soon..
Ausregistry has already been fired...Afilias won with a 60% lower price bid......changes are happening
