auDA announces "Domain Investor Focus Group" without even calling for members

[Bacon Farmer]

Drop will benefit but that does not in itself make me wrong to think that it will eventually be a good thing for domain investors.
auDA is not ramming anything through, they delayed this by two years in order to make space to listen to feedback.
In my opinion the anti direct registration feedback orchestrated by this forum was not constructive nor was it delivered professionally. There where all sorts of flaws in the logic and the biggest mistake was pro-porting to speak on behalf of small businesses. This unprofessional conduct has hurt the aftermarket considerably and I for one welcome the DIWG for doing this through the proper channels and I hope they take this opportunity to speak out on their own behalf.
- Anthony

I find your arguments lack credibility when you have witnessed the demand members be totally removed from the equation through the capture by supply side entities.

Australian demand members have no elected representation on the board and foreign members outnumber Australian members.

And you sat there and said what?

You have the audacity to question people who work daily with small businesses and question their findings. Yet offer none of your own.

auDA are ramming through the constitutional changes and direct registration is next.

 

[Drop.com.au]

No it should never have been accepted at the first stage. The simplistic "demand" evidence should never have been used to get to the next step.

You are not in charge and you don't get to make that decision. For the record I also don't like the decision to split it, if it was up to me the 2015 Names Panel would have looked at both YES/NO and HOW, but it was not up to me. We cannot change the fact that it was split and we have to wait for the PRP to finish looking at HOW to finally answer all the questions. Remember all the YES votes in 2015 Names Panel where YES but depending on how.

What I do have an issue with is this forum engaging in a misguided campaign attacking auDA outside of the proper forums for feedback. That behaviour has set Domain Investor / auDA relationships back substantially and now we are facing a scenario where the PRP might make a recommendation to rollback the monetisation policy. It is really important for the DIWG to make a clear case for how monetisation is not evil and that generic parked domains names which also happen to be for sale are not a problem.
- Anthony

 

[Drop.com.au]

I find your arguments lack credibility when you have witnessed the demand members be totally removed from the equation through the capture by supply side entities.

Australian demand members have no elected representation on the board and foreign members outnumber Australian members.

And you sat there and said what?

You have the audacity to question people who work daily with small businesses and question their findings. Yet offer none of your own.

auDA are ramming through the constitutional changes and direct registration is next.

I am keeping very far away from constitutional changes on this thread, if you want to go into that quagmire then there are other threads to discuss that (and it does look very scary). However sticking to the DIWG, the PRP and the issue of Direct registration is in keeping with this thread.

I have seen the auDA board filled with non-experienced board members who just said yes to anything the CEO wanted while traveling first class and sleeping in 5 star hotels. I then saw it get captured by supply, then I saw it get captured by demand and now I see the membership has been captured by supply again in order to get the government changes approved. As far as I am concerned the governance stuff has been questionable as all hell for the better part of a decade. Did you realise that there are no Registrars on the board of auDA right now (in fact since the last AGM)? Both side of the equation are broken yet it neither proves nor disproves nothing nor everything.
- Anthony

 

[Drop.com.au]

You have the audacity to question people who work daily with small businesses and question their findings. Yet offer none of your own.

Just for the record I also work with small business on a daily basis as do all the registrars. They are our bread and butter just like they are yours.
I gave my findings to the 2015 Names Panel and I listened to the feedback of others with more data than myself. That is the proper process which I followed. I did not give a big song and a dance about it and I did not make a video to seem more important than I am.

I am here offering my opinion on what I have seen and heard in order to help you and others reading this to understand how we got to where we are and how to give constructive feedback into the process rather than shouting to get attention.
- Anthony

 

[Cheyne]

Australian demand members have no elected representation on the board and foreign members outnumber Australian members.

The less than 100 "demand" members do not accurately represent the view of over 3 million .au registrants. You can't accurately represent people who you have almost no engagement with.

My staff, members who you continue to claim are illegitimate, speak to .au registrants on a near-daily basis. Compare that with one of your ringleaders who doesn't even know auDA's website address or the difference between a registrar and a registry operator.

And in case you didn't know, we ran a survey of our customers earlier this year and the results are clear, but instead of accepting what the views of over 10,000 actual .au registrants have said you will claim it was rigged or in some way bias.

But forget about that. Marketing can create demand. Nobody "needed" a Thermomix until the neighbours all had one. Demand doesn't always have to be completely organic, but thankfully in this case it is.

Tell me, when the last time you spoke to 10,000 .au registrants and asked them their view?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Yes of course the new and temporary 955 foreign (supply class employees) demand members, do represent more accurately Australia.... no hang on....

Who is our ring leader he he he

 

[Scott.L]

The less than 100 "demand" members do not accurately represent the view of over 3 million .au registrants. You can't accurately represent people who you have almost no engagement with.

My staff, members who you continue to claim are illegitimate, speak to .au registrants on a near-daily basis. Compare that with one of your ringleaders who doesn't even know auDA's website address or the difference between a registrar and a registry operator.

And in case you didn't know, we ran a survey of our customers earlier this year and the results are clear, but instead of accepting what the views of over 10,000 actual .au registrants have said you will claim it was rigged or in some way bias.

But forget about that. Marketing can create demand. Nobody "needed" a Thermomix until the neighbours all had one. Demand doesn't always have to be completely organic, but thankfully in this case it is.

Tell me, when the last time you spoke to 10,000 .au registrants and asked them their view?

Complex Survey - Very good.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Just for the record I also work with small business on a daily basis as do all the registrars. They are our bread and butter just like they are yours.
I gave my findings to the 2015 Names Panel and I listened to the feedback of others with more data than myself. That is the proper process which I followed. I did not give a big song and a dance about it and I did not make a video to seem more important than I am.

I am here offering my opinion on what I have seen and heard in order to help you and others reading this to understand how we got to where we are and how to give constructive feedback into the process rather than shouting to get attention.
- Anthony

And have you asked any if they know what is coming or how it might come about.

The Names Panel tried to railroad the minority that didn't agree with the majority and has done ever since. They weren't even going to acknowledge there was disagreement in the Names Panel.

So the fact that auDA has been captured, demand class taken out of the equation entirely and direct registrations are being rammed through are not something to have a song and dance about? I beg to differ.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I am keeping very far away from constitutional changes on this thread, if you want to go into that quagmire then there are other threads to discuss that (and it does look very scary). However sticking to the DIWG, the PRP and the issue of Direct registration is in keeping with this thread.

I have seen the auDA board filled with non-experienced board members who just said yes to anything the CEO wanted while traveling first class and sleeping in 5 star hotels. I then saw it get captured by supply, then I saw it get captured by demand and now I see the membership has been captured by supply again in order to get the government changes approved. As far as I am concerned the governance stuff has been questionable as all hell for the better part of a decade. Did you realise that there are no Registrars on the board of auDA right now (in fact since the last AGM)? Both side of the equation are broken yet it neither proves nor disproves nothing nor everything.
- Anthony

You acknowledge that auDA is captured by one side and they are making major changes and yet seem to think that's nothing to be concerned about because it's happened before?

Nah that's just looking the other way whilst a crime is committed and justifying your ambivalence.

 

[findtim]

proper forums

so you call the next forum "proper" ?

no engagement

= no knowledge of it

less than 100 "demand" members

thats the way they always liked it for 18 years ..... UNTIL........ they need to vote in a new constitution !
june17th 2018, @ 250 members
june 18th 2018 , @ 1200 members
september 27th 2018 , @ 1200 members
sepember 28th 2018, @ <250 members

how does that meet the government review guidelines?

tim

 

[Jimboot]

You spoke to them and then according to you they all agreed with you, then you came here and found that you and Tim found the same results and concluded that the only possibility is that you are both right. Has it entered into your reasoning that you could both be biased?

As a marketing front man for your own SEO company it is natural that you ignore opinions that don't lead where you are wanting to go. It is also natural that you are skilled at imparting an opinion in order to get a result. So this is not meant as a personal criticism because you seem to be skilled at marketing but you also need to realise that you bring a huge amount of moderator bias into into quantitive research you attempt to do yourself.

Can you answer my nagging question about how you can claim there is no demand and yet also claim there is huge risk?
- Anthony

You can read my submission to the DoCA review where I outlined some of the risks. I say there is no demand because when I asked for proof of demand at the PRP I was shut down. If there is demand, lets see the data. I don't think you understand that I will make good money from Direct AU. We are already ranking for key terms and are ready to provide domain migration services. If I was biased don't you think I'd be leaning into promoting Direct AU? Do you have a bias? Will you make money from Direct AU Registrations? Can you answer my nagging question? Why is asking for a business case so controversial?

 

[Jimboot]

J I did not make a video to seem more important than I am.
- Anthony

Did someone do that?

 

[Drop.com.au]

You can read my submission to the DoCA review where I outlined some of the risks.

Risks relate to implementation and until the PRP has a recommendation on implementation it is too soon to be quantifying risks.

I say there is no demand because when I asked for proof of demand at the PRP I was shut down.

Firstly if you want proof then you should do research on the 2015 Names Panel beyond reading the minority report, you should also speak to people who sat on the panel and where not signatories to the minority report. I am personally willing to meet you for a coffee (or a beer) and talk to you about the other side of this equation. In my opinion at the PRP meeting in Melbourne you where aggressive and you dominated the conversation to the detriment of all the people who had patiently sat there all day. I personally wish they had had security there to escort you from the premises as you wasted a good opportunity for polite people to give feedback on the actual implementation issues which is what we where there to discuss.

If there is demand, lets see the data.

Pretty simple, Large registrars reported a 30% cart abandonment during com.au/.net.au domain purchasing. It was hypothesised that there is demand from people without ABNs for domains and they are not comfortable with id.au domains. It was agreed to run a survey, which was done by registrars, after getting close to 70% of respondents saying YES we would register a .au domain it was heavily criticised as being biased. auDA board then requested an independent survey which got the same result of ~70% saying yes they would register a .au domain. I can already hear everyone screaming out "but at what cost and for what benefit"... where is the business case... well the answer is that doing a business case requires an analysis of risk and the risks cannot be fully quantified until there is an implementation model. So here we are waiting for the PRP to made implementation recommendations so that Cameron can get a proper business case drawn up.

I don't think you understand that I will make good money from Direct AU. We are already ranking for key terms and are ready to provide domain migration services. If I was biased don't you think I'd be leaning into promoting Direct AU?

In my opinion your benefit from flying the minority report flag was to get yourself ranking as an expert on all the potential problems early. You chose a controversial viewpoint and then stood on a soapbox getting lots of attention in order to line yourself up to provide the services you described above. You did very little research on the opposing viewpoint and when the conversation moved forward you kept repeating outdated an inaccurate information. This is well know and understood Youtube clickbait behaviour.

Do you have a bias?

Yes I do, it is well documented and understood. I also happen to have three kids and I want them to be able to do school projects on .au domains rather than .xyz domains.

Will you make money from Direct AU Registrations?

Probably/hopefully. Will my customers make even more money from Direct reg? Even more likely, Yes. Will future registrants benefit from .au "yes, almost guaranteed".

Can you answer my nagging question? Why is asking for a business case so controversial?

It is not controversial to ask for it. Once there is an implementation proposal from the PRP a business case will be done so the board can made a decision with quantified risks and benefits.

 

[Jimboot]

Risks relate to implementation and until the PRP has a recommendation on implementation it is too soon to be quantifying risks.
Firstly if you want proof then you should do research on the 2015 Names Panel beyond reading the minority report, you should also speak to people who sat on the panel and where not signatories to the minority report. I am personally willing to meet you for a coffee (or a beer) and talk to you about the other side of this equation. In my opinion at the PRP meeting in Melbourne you where aggressive and you dominated the conversation to the detriment of all the people who had patiently sat there all day. I personally wish they had had security there to escort you from the premises as you wasted a good opportunity for polite people to give feedback on the actual implementation issues which is what we where there to discuss.

Pretty simple, Large registrars reported a 30% cart abandonment during com.au/.net.au domain purchasing. It was hypothesised that there is demand from people without ABNs for domains and they are not comfortable with id.au domains. It was agreed to run a survey, which was done by registrars, after getting close to 70% of respondents saying YES we would register a .au domain it was heavily criticised as being biased. auDA board then requested an independent survey which got the same result of ~70% saying yes they would register a .au domain. I can already hear everyone screaming out "but at what cost and for what benefit"... where is the business case... well the answer is that doing a business case requires an analysis of risk and the risks cannot be fully quantified until there is an implementation model. So here we are waiting for the PRP to made implementation recommendations so that Cameron can get a proper business case drawn up.

In my opinion your benefit from flying the minority report flag was to get yourself ranking as an expert on all the potential problems early. You chose a controversial viewpoint and then stood on a soapbox getting lots of attention in order to line yourself up to provide the services you described above. You did very little research on the opposing viewpoint and when the conversation moved forward you kept repeating outdated an inaccurate information. This is well know and understood Youtube clickbait behaviour.
Yes I do, it is well documented and understood. I also happen to have three kids and I want them to be able to do school projects on .au domains rather than .xyz domains. Probably/hopefully. Will my customers make even more money from Direct reg? Even more likely, Yes. Will future registrants benefit from .au "yes, almost guaranteed".
It is not controversial to ask for it. Once there is an implementation proposal from the PRP a business case will be done so the board can made a decision with quantified risks and benefits.

You have a fertile imagination about my motives and no quantitive research on why we need this. A hypothesis is just that. It needs data to be proven. What business looks at trying to implement something without a business case to justify looking at it? Your logic sounds like ->"Who wants biz.au ? Oooh me me me. Great lets look at how to implement it. " I understand your bias now. Thanks

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I'm pretty sure i could get a much higher fake demand result with my Ferrari survey.

And the cart abandonment would be close 100%.

Still doesn't justify ramming direct registration through.