I ended up losing 8 domains out of the 20.
I thought it would be best to wait for the case to be closed and domains dropped, which they have today, before I wrote about my first auDA complaint experience in the 22 years since I have owned my first .com.au domain name.
In hindsight, I was glad that I had experienced the first auDA complaint with the 1 domain which taught me not to be complacent with my reply. In the case of the first complaint, the domain name was not pointing to any DNS hence there was no website, so I guess it was fair enough that I received the complaint. When I got the domain, I was working on a comparison site but never finished it as I moved on to another paying project, putting this project on hold, but unfortunately did not think I needed to monetise the domain. I sent this info, along with logo and wire frame screenshot, to auDA and the ultimate reply was “you have not met the eligibility criteria”.
When I received the complaint of 19 domain, with the great assistance of this community, thanks to everyone that reached out, and the experience with the first auDA complaint, initially received a week before, I know I need to provide as much information as I could to show that all domains where in policy at one point in time and somewhere along the line unfortunately several of these domains, not all, neglected for a little while before putting them BACK into policy.
I spent my weekend writing the response and submitted a rather lengthy reply about each domain with screenshots etc to my registrar who then forwarded the message to auDA. This was May 13th. On May 21st I received a reply from my registrar.
It seemed that most evidence, screenshots of monitised service creation date etc have been ignored for a simple reply that included words like "As previously noted, this was also not a monetised domain name"
(don't know where "As previously noted" came from) which I spent most of the reply showing that the domain names were in fact monetised for a long time since domain registration and while for a short time may have fallen out of policy, have now been corrected.
I note I was given benefit of doubt on some of the domains which most likely prevented me having a heart attack.
Then my eyes literally popped out of their socket when I saw the reply to JavaScript.com.au.
The registrant's stated basis for eligibility is not an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant's name or trademark, nor does it fall under one of the close and substantial connection criteria. As noted by the registrant, "javascript" is a programming language, it is not a service. "Javascripting" would indicate a service, not the actual product itself. As previously noted, this was also not a monetised domain name, nor, as a brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered, could it be. Therefore, the registrants stated basis for eligibility is not based on auDA policy and the domain name must be policy deleted.
In my 22 years in business, I have never been asked to provide “JavaScriping” service or product, doing a Google on "JavaScriping" returns "Including results for JavaScript". In fact, in my 22 years, I have been asked for and have provided many JavaScript product and services as any web design company would. In any case, isn't "JavaScript" close and substantial connection to "JavaScriping" service auDA conceded I was providing? If auDA know more about my business than me, what chance do I really have? In my opinion, this nonsense brash decision auDA should not have the right to make a call on when they also have the big red delete domain button on the same keyboard. If they have any doubt, they should request more information. This was so mind blowing, I was totally speechless, auDA did not deserve my respect for a reply and as such I lost this domain name I have owned since 2002.
All this was followed by message from auDA instruction to my registrar the following
In summary please proceed with moving the following domain names into policy delete by no later than 5:00 PM Thursday 23th.
Yes, 23rd, this gives me just 2 business days to reply to 11 domains left on the delete list provided to my registrar. It felt like they have a delete quota they need to reach, and I was the sucker.
I scrambled to BEG for a review on four of the 11 domains remaining on the delete list, noting that I did not agree with their reply on the other domains, but really needed to concentrate on these four domains, one of which was used for emails, evidence was provided to auDA in original reply, and frankly I was just burned out from this process and just gave up hope on auAD policy review process.
Thankfully auDA was kind enough to provide benefit of doubt on further review for these four domains which I’m very very thankful for. Thank you auDA, there is hope after all.
