Government Slammed in Parliament over .AU proposal

[snoopy]

No. It would only be flawed if auDA or the panel had deliberately excluded them from the conversation. If they have an option but chose not to take it that does not break the consultation process.

By “they” who are you talking about?

Was a group that truly represents Australian business asked?

 

[snoopy]

He was not in charge of it, but he did reach out to people he knew and asked them to get involved. Technically auDA was in charge of making the position available and then publishing its availability. Beyond that no one has to get the position filled.

The question is at what point does the panel not pass the “sniff test”. Can the panel not include that business representive and still be seen as credible by the public.

In my view this is likely to play out in the media and the public is likely to pass judgment on the issue.

 

[DomainShield]

By “they” who are you talking about?

Was a group that truly represents Australian business asked?

Do you have some evidence that the most appropriate They did not get asked?
Jim made a list of his Theys which according to him did not get asked.
Paul had a list of his Theys which he did ask and they declined.
auDA presumably had a list of previous Theys which we have no evidence did not get asked.
I am personally not an expert of the habits of Theys but unless someone can show me that their They is the best They and that their They was known to be the best They by auDA and that auDA did something to excluded that They, then I would be inclined to concluded that the process is not broken by the absence of your favourite They.

 

[snoopy]

That is funny, you are asking me for evidence when I’m saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body?

 

[Rhythm]

In my view this is likely to play out in the media and the public is likely to pass judgment on the issue.

kangaroo court
noun
noun: kangaroo court; plural noun: kangaroo courts

1. an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.
   "they conducted a kangaroo court there and then"

 

[DomainShield]

The question is at what point does the panel not pass the “sniff test”. Can the panel not include that business representive and still be seen as credible by the public.

Same answer... yes it does and yes it will be seen as credible by normal people when they see that 1) The position was made available 2) Offers where made to suitable candidates 3) The candidates declined 4) The candidates are still able to make public submissions

In

my view this is likely to play out in the media and the public is likely to pass judgment on the issue.

Why on earth would normal people care about something like this? I cannot see this getting mainstream attention, they are far to busy worrying about who slept with whom in reality tv programmes.

 

[snoopy]

Sorry to inform you Rythym but public opinion rules on most issues, that is democracy.

If most people don’t like .au it simply won’t happen no matter what auDA thinks.

 

[Rhythm]

That is funny, you are asking me for evidence when I’m saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body?

They asked me.
I think my body isn't too bad if you ignore the lack of 6-pack abs

 

[snoopy]

I cannot see this getting mainstream attention, they are far to busy worrying about who slept with whom in reality tv programmes.

I suspect auDA was banking on this also. Doesn’t look to be panning out that way.

 

[Lemon]

That is funny, you are asking me for evidence when I’m saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body?

It is funny that you are saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body.
At the Melbourne meeting the first question I asked (10 minutes into the meeting when they were introducing the panel) was why there is not a peak business body representative and they answered the question.
I am not defending them, but they did ask and get rejected.
Personally I think they could have tried harder.

 

[DomainShield]

That is funny, you are asking me for evidence when I’m saying it is unknown if they asked an appropriate body?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.
As far as I can tell you don't know who the appropriate body is.
You don't know that they did not get asked.
You do however know that the position was made available.
You also know that people on the panel (both ACCC and ACCAN) told us they tried to get others involved.

Would it be reasonable to assume that to the best of your knowledge multiple appropriate bodies where approached and apparently declined to be involved?
Would it be reasonable to point out that your assertions that other appropriate bodies were not asked is based on what someone else wrote somewhere and you are repeating it because it fits your narrative?

 

[Rhythm]

Sorry to inform you Rythym but public opinion rules on most issues, that is democracy.

If most people don’t like .au it simply won’t happen no matter what auDA thinks.

It's ok, your disinformation has never managed to inform me since the day you signed up

 

[Bacon Farmer]

He was not in charge of it, but he did reach out to people he knew and asked them to get involved. Technically auDA was in charge of making the position available and then publishing its availability. Beyond that no one has to get the position filled.

No one has to get the position filled... unless they want the process to be seen to be, fair and balanced.

 

[Lemon]

No one has to get the position filled... unless they want the process to be seen to be, fair and balanced.

Let us not forget a recently elected director was on the panel and should also be held responsible for not getting the position filled.

 

[DomainNames]

I am guessing you are talking rubbish. They may have offered their alternative opinion but no one has formally provided evidence proving the opposite. If there was evidence then the board would be looking at that and this ball would not be rolling.

FACT: The current auDA CEO, current auDA Board and PRP did not read all of the past submissions.

 

[DomainNames]

Let us not forget a recently elected director was on the panel and should also be held responsible for not getting the position filled.

As you would be aware their is still a Demand Class Direct Vacant position. The fact is the Demand class is not fully represented.

This is apparently a deliberate attempt by some to hold power.... and push through whatever they want or stop the required changes members voted for from happening.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Throwing mud at Ned eh? What were the election results? Going to run again this year?

 

[DomainNames]

No I don't.

Like I said on the other thread, and like I said on the phone. Nothing is decided, they have only just provided us with some ideas and discussion points which might result in a recommendation which might get accepted by the board which might get implemented in a few years time. There are so many mights, ifs, buts and discussion points that I would need a four hour long video to explain it to them.
What I do know is that the domain they buy from me comes with a license for two years and an option to renew it which will not be taken away from them. .It is my opinion that .com.au will still be valuable for the next decade at least. Further to that I have never promised them the rights to another extension so I don't need to tell them now that there is a remote chance they might not get an extra, potentially more valuable and easier to sell domain for $20.

The talking and the delays is very likely hurting their investments in the short term. In my opinion your crazy talk here is far more likely to damage their investment than the introduction of .au which is actually going to help them in the long run.

I was not there and I cannot talk on behalf of a competitors manager or even verify what she said 1000km away. There is a short term detriment to drop catching and the aftermarket. I still believe there is a much greater good which comes from this and I am willing to sacrifice my short term gain for a better result.

For the reference my protest was not against the introduction of direct registration, it was the delays in getting this discussion underway and having to wait until Aug 2018 to get their recommendations
I have also been busy working... Afilias released their sandbox for us on the 28th so we have to start planning, developing and testing for the new environment. I have also been working on our public submission. This weekend has been a write off as my cat also got hit by a car and has a broken leg so I am trying to get him fixed up.


Which thread did I miss which shows how anyone has experienced damage beyond wasting their time and reputations pretending to talk for small businesses? I am sorry if you ever thought I was against direct registrations. If you re-read the quote you posted there you will see that I was only ever against the delay between the 2015 announcement and the commencement of this discussion.

I am of the opinion that the quicker we can get this done and dusted the sooner we can get back to selling domains.

In fact I think the worst possible outcome is for the current panel to recommend not proceeding or the panel to make a recommendation which the board then tries to block. That would push this out to the next names panel and a new board to look at, which will leave our market even more uncertain that ever before. That is probably something I would consider putting a warning about on our website.

Once you listen to the audio you and others will not be continually pushing for this to be done as fast as is possible...

If auDA push this through and officially announce the cut off date of 18 April 2016 drop catchers like DomainShield.com.au Drop.com.au Netfleet.com.au will all suffer a direct hit on your own businesses... and possibly worse.

 

[Lemon]

If auDA push this through and officially announce the cut off date of 18 April 2016 drop catchers will suffer a direct hit on your own businesses... and possibly worse.

Of course there is the possibility that drop catchers could double their business by selling the .net.au version of the domain at the same time.

 

[DomainNames]

Of course there is the possibility that drop catchers could double their business by selling the .net.au version of the domain at the same time.

How?

Please tell the truth....You where at the PRP meetings and you also should by now know the facts of the cut off date and affect on all names registered after that date.... .com.au, .net.au whatever.. No eligibility for the proposed .au at all if it is held in another extension already prior to 18 April 2016.

You asked questions at the meeting about it.. remember?