ok, reply to this long reply.
firstly, sorry for the sexist remark, truly.
All good, let get into the habit of saying we hope they have the guts to do XYZ because girls are perfectly capable of doing great things. I do wonder if one day the gastrophiles will also say it is gastrophobic of me to make that comment.
cmwg, well it just seems that way based on the recent forum and the lack of cmwg involvement on THAT SIDE of the table, how embarrassing that cmwg were not included in the answering of questions by members !
Thanks for the clarification, I am not on the CMWG so I was looking at it from the macro level. I am interest to know if it does get disbanded officially. I am also interested to know if ever the PRP was to get derailed officially. From my perspective auDA has been so busy with governance changes that they have not been able to do some of their actual job, like reviewing policies. From what I can see the 2015 Names Panel is the last policy review to have been completed and made official recommendations to the board. The last 3 years have been a bit of a blank in terms of finishing things so I am keen to see the PRP or the CMWG get to the point of making recommendations.
hands up all those people that believe the effort of consultation submissions is worth the time?
I for one plan to keep making submissions and participating in focus groups and policy review panels.
Hands up everyone who believes that harassing auDA via dntrade and turning them into domainerphobes is worth the time and achieving anything?
how about inside influence??? i always supported the cmwg as being independent but i don't feel its ended that way.
I probably don't know enough about it. I am a little outside of the loop but I do respect you, are you on the CMWG and can you tell me how it got derailed? I would have come to the pub last night to ask about this but it was my daughters birthday.
firstly "THE" how can it be just the one?
"There can be only one, raaaa" ... okay enough highlander quotes from me.
Is it fair to say that you have an opinion on demand which is gained from a small group of people talking to one another again and again repeating the same thing on this forum. You also conducted research by contacting all of your own pool of customers asking them a completely different question to the one of "would you register a .au if you could" and then you have proposed that answer to refute evidence of the independent survey conducted by auDA of 1,000 random participants as "proof" that there is no demand? Then in the face of actual evidence to the contrary you have repeated the same evidence for about 2 years now while demanding a business case to help prove if there is demand before allowing auDA enough room to determine a potential "how" in order to make a proper business case which will factor real risks to businesses which might be affected by the how.
And for goodness sake you cannot logically claim there is no demand AND there is a huge risk at the same time... if there was no demand (like for id.au or asn.au domains, there there would be no risk). It is because there is demand that we need to be concerned about risk. Logically the Yes/No demand answer is so obvious that no one at auDA can understand how you could even question it never mind spend money on a business case to analyse it.
henry established a NEED before he built a car ! he then worked out the $$ to find if it was viable and then he worked out how to implement it. THANKS for bringing that up
I am not old enough to have actually met Mr Ford, I am pretty sure that the demand was for a faster horse and he built a car instead. Inadvertently creating a demand for petrol which melted our ice caps while creating a byproduct which gets turned into plastic which then ends up destroying our oceans and getting into our digestive systems and literally meaning it is going to take guts to undo what he created.
true, mention that to auda please.
demand? what demand for a .au ? i think its just something a small group of noisy agitators want
this is a defeatist statement, it concludes its a given and it isn't, this is the problem, take away implementation and go first to viability and you do not have to deal with implementation or monetisation issues.
Lets break it down, Viability means "ability to work successfully"... so in your opinion auDA needs to put down on paper (a business case) some predictions on the ability of .au to work successfully. You are also demanding that they do this without any regard for HOW it might get implemented.
Their logic as I understand it is 1) We have done a survey and 70% of people wanted the .au when we offered it so it looks pretty popular. 2) We know that technically it is trivial to implement. 3) There is precedent in all the other top 10 ccTLDs that it can be done BUT We are worried about HOW it might affect people so we are going to go ahead and get the PRP to get ideas on implementation so we can do a realistic business case where the RISKs section would be devoted to how it would affect existing registrants.
It looks to me like they are doing the right thing by getting together all the data they need in order to do a business case. To be clear they are collecting pros and cons, they are looking at demand and risks together which can ONLY be done once the PRP give them an implementation model.
So seriously, there can be only one (highlander was right) and it should take into account the 2 million small businesses who you think are going to get inconvenience by it.
TOTALLY agree, parked websites SUCK and mosttttttttt make just pennies, thats why i am a developer and not a domainer. but auda have to realise this is a "property" market no different from MANY others which are accepted by people and government.
vacant land abounds in suburbs and cities, just look at between flinders and spencer stations as you do the turn, that big ugly bird has been sitting there for years and just now its being built, brissie look outside of roma street, that triangle parking lot next to the pedestrian overpass, vacant for yearsssss, not to mention cathedral sq near the valley was vacant for 20+ YEARS, SYDNEY !!! just name it, pyrmont area, barangaroo ! there's no difference to them and a domain name, people got in first and bought, sat and then built or sold to someone who built, NO BODY came and said "sorry, we are taking your land away from you"
My point was that parked sites suck less than dead ends. I also know that auDA is not ignorant of how monetisation works and how domainers fit into the ecosystem. What the PRP says and thinks is a different matter obviously but I consider their hostile rhetoric to be the result of being attacked by domainers rather than the result of logical deduction. The DIWG is the concise logical voice the aftermarket needs to give input to the PRP so they can make logical decisions. Even if the PRP stayed as hostile as they are and put forward a proposal to remove monetisation I still don't think the board would accept that recommendation. Even if they did remove the monetisation rule it would not result in the widespread loss of land you are suggesting. It would require domainers to start being developers again and putting up a bunch of sites with content and links, which is essentially what all websites are anyway and why all com.au domains are by nature monetised too.
more to say but i'll stop.
tim
