is auDA.org.au abusing it's power?

[Bacon Farmer]

The non attendance means the government isn't serious about reform or that they have confidence in the auDA liberal branch to get things right.

Could the reformist agenda all be a sham to justify the removal of members from the organisation via the adoption of a "functional constituency" model?

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Board/auDA-Implementation-Plan-17May2018.pdf

 

[Peter T]

Could the reformist agenda all be a sham to justify the removal of members from the organisation via the adoption of a "functional constituency" model?

This couldn't be further from the truth. auDA's future success is based on broadening its membership, not reducing that membership.
Furthermore, reducing the membership would breach recommendation 11 of the review "That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.".

 

[Scott.L]

The non attendance means the government isn't serious about reform or that they have confidence in the auDA liberal branch to get things right.

…or the alternative; the Dept recognizes the complexity of fixing auDA because it includes reform outcomes requiring member approval, resulting in, amplified resistance in such a short time to resolve the various issues. therefore, making the decision to distance itself from auDA is sensible. [you’re on your own boys, see you in 3 months]

Could the reformist agenda all be a sham to justify the removal of members from the organisation via the adoption of a "functional constituency" model?

I very much doubt It’s possible to get transparency and accountability or good governance from a functional constituency model. Companies are created to benefit shareholders, and it’s in a company’s interest to expand its influence and preserve the status quo that favours them. It’s not very ‘democratic’ neither accountable to the public at election time; excluding natural persons [real people] from the equal right to participate. Basically, get a bunch of companies together that are involved in the consumer supply and development of the domain name registration market and give them power to make decisions about their own market… is not a good idea, it will lead to monumental monopoly collusion for profit and under the table income to those associated by proxy of this power [to keep them in power].

Also, let’s assume they ignore this warning and decide to implement it; the domain registration market investors [registrants] would be required to unite as an industry body to get a seat on this board, and that will come at a price to auDA. The industry body will need to be funded by auDA or, the cost of domain registration will need to be reduced to accommodate an automated OPT-IN membership upon registration. [requiring registrar cooperation] Either way, tapping into the registrant market and asking them for money to have a seat on this board will not fly, and not having real registrant representation on the board will be unconscionable.

Besides, the Government made it clear about its commitments to a multi-stakeholder model that supports a wide range of views from the Australian public. A single membership model with a multi-stakeholder framework is preferred – the biggest argument in favour of a single membership model inclusive of natural and legal persons is obvious; members are consumers, and consumers should have both commercial [policy] and political access [right to vote] to participate and influence their own public resource which is entrusted to them as Australians.

Interesting to note;
Taken from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT] website;
http://dfat.gov.au/international-re...rt_5_internet_governance_and_cooperation.html


And, it would be a greater shock to learn the Government will simply take control over it.

 

[snoopy]

…or the alternative; the Dept recognizes the complexity of fixing auDA because it includes reform outcomes requiring member approval, resulting in, amplified resistance in such a short time to resolve the various issues. therefore, making the decision to distance itself from auDA is sensible. [you’re on your own boys, see you in 3 months

I think the government sees auDA as unfixable. They are simply going through the motions. In my view a new entity is going to result in better outcomes than trying to fix what already exists. They'll put in a better model with genuinely new management. That might change if the SGM is successful but as it stands it is completely pointless to change the constitution with all the management problems living on.

I think this sums it up best,

There was a widespread view within the department that auDA had been “subject to capture” and “membership stacking” by vested interests.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2018/04/25/domain-name-auda-dispute/

The membership stacking has gotten even more blatant since the government review. You can imagine what they think of auDA in Canberra right now.

 

[Scott.L]

...it is completely pointless to change the constitution with all the management problems living on.

Well that's the disease and the cure right there.

 

[Scott.L]

In my view a new entity is going to result in better outcomes than trying to fix what already exists. They'll put in a better model with genuinely new management.

correct me if i'm wrong, I think the Board and membership is required to be restructured prior to the AGM via constitutional change. But, whose drafting it? I haven't seen or heard anything about it.

Here's a curly one for you, Perhaps auDA are scuttling about behind the scene to create a new entity for themselves, maybe they'll name the new entity auHQ? [would explain the silence and disengagement]

 

[Jimboot]

It'd be interesting to know if the Govt were invited. Were they notified? How are board members usually notified of board meetings?

 

[Scott.L]

It'd be interesting to know if the Govt were invited. Were they notified? How are board members usually notified of board meetings?

That's a good question Jim. 19.8 refers to sending the Dept notice of meetings; would it be considered best practice to provision awareness about this process in the minutes? or should i dare say...should we see that auDA has fully accommodated the Government Observer status as per 19.8

 

[Bacon Farmer]

This couldn't be further from the truth. auDA's future success is based on broadening its membership, not reducing that membership.
Furthermore, reducing the membership would breach recommendation 11 of the review "That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.".

I'd never heard of a functional constituency until I saw it in auDA's submission. It's on the agenda and it was put there by the board.

I'd never thought the board would appoint it's own demand directors either but 3 board appointed demand directors later and obviously they feel they can manage without us pesky interfering members. Which is actually the main reason for the "reform" agenda.

 

[snoopy]

correct me if i'm wrong, I think the Board and membership is required to be restructured prior to the AGM via constitutional change. But, whose drafting it? I haven't seen or heard anything about it.

Probably Cameron and Chris but they'll have to say it was the Constitutional Working Group to sell it to members. Bit like the PRP where it is in reality controlled by auDA to a large degree.

Here's a curly one for you, Perhaps auDA are scuttling about behind the scene to create a new entity for themselves, maybe they'll name the new entity auHQ? [would explain the silence and disengagement]

The government would never endorse it. No way are they going to set up another entity that would be flawed from the very start.

 

[Scott.L]

This couldn't be further from the truth. auDA's future success is based on broadening its membership, not reducing that membership.
Furthermore, reducing the membership would breach recommendation 11 of the review "That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.".

hello Peter,

....Broadening its membership may not mean 'more people' it may simply mean as it suggests 'Membership Diversification' - I cant find anything in the Government review that states auDA must increase membership numbers.



Therefore, why would auDA suggest a Functional Constituency Model; that dramatically reduces membership numbers ]

 

[Scott.L]

.au namespace – includes; com.au. net.au, org.au, asn.au, id.au

New company registrations compared to all .au Domain name registrations; the column titled ‘Difference’ is the assumption that one new company created actually registered one .au domain.

A simple snapshot:
Over 6 months 97,000 new companies were registered, only 13,659 .au domain registrations were created in the .au namespace, leaving over 85,000 new companies to:

- Decided to use an existing domain name
- Find and alternative to .au
- Are not interested in the .au Namespace to advertise or promote their goods and services. [favoring social media; Facebook,,etc]

Note: [the stat table does not take into consideration after-market transfers; if it did, approx. 7,000-8,000 transfers over 6 moths occurred]
https://www.ausregistry.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/1805General.pdf
https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/statistics/company-registration-statistics/2018-company-registration-statistics/#new

Question:
With all the money auDA pulls in from the domain registration market - What has auDA done to promote and attract investment in the .au Namespace to over 85,000 newly created companies over the past 6 months?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

 

[Scott.L]

The business name registry is a tight registration space - have a look at it.
Rules for determining whether business names are identical or nearly identical to other names;

[Schedule 1] Words and expressions taken to be the same - Obviously people are not having a problem creating a new business name under these restrictions; So it cannot be argued that the domain registration market has exhausted its own comprehensible keyword combinations.

in fact, it surprises me to see that all these newly created companies are not running amok to register .au domain names that represent elements of their brand, product, and or service. Perhaps they don't know about .au?

 

[trellian]

Hi Scott
with regards to:

.au namespace – includes; com.au. net.au, org.au, asn.au, id.au

Would you happen to have the number of "New Creates" broken up into the 2 figures, New Registrations and Deletes as grouping these 2 figures together does not give an accurate number of how many businesses actually would have bought/registered a .au name.

What I guess it will really show is the instability of the market where the number of domains not renewed is growing and the number of deleted domains are likely to increase, especially when you look at the number of drops that are being requested to be caught have taken hit.

Cheers
David

 

[Scott.L]

Would you happen to have the number of "New Creates" broken up into the 2 figures, New Registrations and Deletes as grouping these 2 figures together does not give an accurate number of how many businesses actually would have bought/registered a .au name.

Yes and I wish I could see the relationship of New Company Registrations compared with Domain Transfers, Expired Auctions, and New Domain Registrations. Regardless, the math speaks for itself, New Company Registration and its relationship to the .au Namespace is severely disproportionate to the number of Domain Name Registrations within that corresponding period - in my opinion, the namespace is simply not promoted to New Business to attract new Domain registration. Understandably so.

I calculated the numbers as you suggested: [if this calculation is incorrect please say so]

Domain Registration and Drop-Off rates 2018

The Monthly totals are subtracted from the previous month total to identify the gain or loss for that month.
Overall the market volume [activity] appears consistent, but has very little overall net gain.

Over 6 months –
A net gain via the drops of 145 Domains &
A net increase of 9,477 Domain Registrations.
A total net gain of 9,622 domains.




Compared with 2017 - over 10%↓ down each month since January 2018 to May 2018 for both Registration and Drop Auctions.

.Data sourced from - https://www.ausregistry.com.au/domain-reports/

 

[trellian]

Thanks Scott,

So from the revised figures there are more than double the number of new registrations to new company registrations. Despite a drop of 10% it still shows a clear sign that the average AU consumer, is still choosing to register .com.au names and has no idea about the what is going on in the space, and with those numbers they are still able to register their domain names.

Anyway this thread has definitely gone off topic. So back to that.

The Aftermarket has definitely seen huge drops in consumer confidence. The prices are just not there, the demand is not there, the number of drop bids on Drop and Netfleet are at a record low. So this is the space that is currently most affected.

At Drop after we complete our migration and new site, the Aftermarket auctions will resume and we will be working hard to promote the aftermarket to end buyers and rebuild the stability and confidence of the space. As at the end of the day that is all what we want.

Cheers
David

 

[Scott.L]

So from the revised figures there are more than double the number of new registrations to new company registrations. Despite a drop of 10% it still shows a clear sign that the average AU consumer, is still choosing to register .com.au names and has no idea about the what is going on in the space, and with those numbers they are still able to register their domain names.

Yes, in isolation domain registrations are double Company Registrations. However, when determining the overall net gain to the domain registration market over the past 6-months we should also calculate the drop off rate [expired domains] as part of that stat;


the table above was the original calculation - subtract drop-off from registrations to get the net loss/gain.

The revised table provided doesn't look so pretty. Over 6 months - A total net gain of 9,622 New domain registrations compared to 97,384 New company registrations. obviously, the new company registration stat has not factored, external administration (EXAD). Appointments which total approx. 3,000 for this time period [its minimal] or voluntary de-registration [unknown] domain registration should be way more, right?

To solidify this argument;

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Policies/panels-and-committees/2017PRP/registrantissuespaper/Scott-Long-March-2018.pdf
Keep in mind, the ABR maintains a restrictive naming allocation process; unlike domain name registration which accommodates name creativity beyond the ABR company name registration policy. This means, the domain naming registration process is more flexible and should produce more registration opportunity for Companies, especially new Companies that are heavily restrict by the ABR naming process. So, why are these registrations low, why is the net gain to the Domain Registration Market compared to Company Name registration disproportionate? In my opinion, auDA has not provided the necessary promotion, education, and investment in this market, it has not found policy outcomes to support the aftermarket, focused on their own commercial aims, and pulled support from community programs and industry grants. Arhhhhhhhhhhh…..

The Aftermarket has definitely seen huge drops in consumer confidence. The prices are just not there, the demand is not there, the number of drop bids on Drop and Netfleet are at a record low. So this is the space that is currently most affected.

Why? My short answer to this question stems from auDA abusing its power by deliberately suppressing the Aftermarket. It’s made obvious by the interim PRP policy recommendations and expression within these recommendations contain an almost spiteful attitude against domain investors. As you know, the aftermarket is the investment arm to the domain registration market, a trading platform critical for the optimization of the market sectors it interacts with. And, as a registrar you would have already identified within its report that the majority of recommendations are very resistant to domain investment. [focused on allocation to non-economic minorities]

At Drop after we complete our migration and new site, the Aftermarket auctions will resume and we will be working hard to promote the aftermarket to end buyers and rebuild the stability and confidence of the space. As at the end of the day that is all what we want.

We all want that David, if only auDA wanted the same; drop auctions such as you provide keep the engines running. One day I hope auDA will support you and others in bringing about heightened awareness about the aftermarket via funded programs.

cheers

 

[snoopy]

The Aftermarket has definitely seen huge drops in consumer confidence. The prices are just not there, the demand is not there, the number of drop bids on Drop and Netfleet are at a record low. So this is the space that is currently most affected.

I think the buyers will the most knowledge will be the first to pull back (domainers).

It is extremely risky right now with the push for .au and the proposal to scrap the monetisation policy. If the monetisation policy is scrapped we are back to the the 2002 situation of people having to register a bunch of business names etc. That is my reading on it anyway. Does anyone see it differently?

It will be chaos if auDA apply it retrospectively to names where people have registered because the monetisation policy allowed them to. I think it would invalidate hundreds of thousands of registrations and it will be expensive and time consuming to get each name compliant. The mere suggestion of doing it by the panel is crazy to me, they don't seem to be considering consumer confidence at all in the what they are saying.

 

[DomainNames]

I'd never heard of a functional constituency until I saw it in auDA's submission. It's on the agenda and it was put there by the board.

I'd never thought the board would appoint it's own demand directors either but 3 board appointed demand directors later and obviously they feel they can manage without us pesky interfering members. Which is actually the main reason for the "reform" agenda.

It is a pity more people don't know this.

The only real efforts I see from auDA are to manipulate processes and potential options to further reduce real knowledgeable users feedback and input.

It appears to me still that those who know a lot, have tried to help are smeared by auDA ( or their paid PR Spindoctors) instead of being listened to.

The majority of the Government review document is not about membership, it is a direct exposure of auDA mismanagement yet auDA is trying to spin it that the existing members are the problem.

I know for a fact numerous members of the auDA CMWG are not confident with the progress being made or what they are being directed and limited to discuss or work on at all by auDA.

auDA told the CMWG they would contact CIRA and get some information about their membership model.. They still haven't.

auDA at the last meeting said they have been writing to the biggest corporates to get them to sign up as auDA members. I asked auDA to let the CMWG see the letter so we could know what was being promoted as a benefit to joining etc and who they have been contacting so we could align that with our proposed membership models we want to put forward to members. They have not supplied the letter they are sending out or provided who they are sending it to. They just mentioned Telstra as one.

Very disappointing and very time consuming for people to invest time on the CMWG ( at least 4 hours per week plus preparation and work outside the 4 hour meetings).

It is my opinion we should have someone from the ACMA and Department Of Communications on the CMWG so they can participate. This opinion has not been welcomed by auDA and some others.

The reality is Government needs to get more involved and really be welcomed to come to meetings and participate or it is a guessing game if anything will meet what members and they need.

I get the feeling auDA is doing all they can to give the appearance they are doing the right thing but I think auDA does not want anyone from DoCA or ACMA at auDA related meetings, panels etc.. In fact I think this was hinted at pretty obviously at one CMWG meeting by auDA management... scare tactics we should be afraid of Government involvement or inclusion...

 

[Bacon Farmer]

This couldn't be further from the truth. auDA's future success is based on broadening its membership, not reducing that membership.
Furthermore, reducing the membership would breach recommendation 11 of the review "That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.".

And yet here we have it as one of two serious contenders.

Does anybody know who proposed this Functional Constituency model?