auDA Board Elections

[joshrowe]

Ned: I'm aware of your invitations.

The facts are that auDA has repeatedly declined all your invitations to participate on DNTrade (see above thread). Now all of a sudden, out of nowhere comes Josh - just weeks prior to an election.

That is incorrect (at least in my case), this was the first invitation I received from Ned to join this forum which I gratefully accepted.

As I said previously, I have attempted to engage the broader industry on issues regarding domain monetisation back as far as 2006, so suggesting that I'm flippantly joining this forum solely to seek votes for re-election is a weak argument.

I think it is fantastic that the domainer community is lobbying auDA hard for changes. I'm here to listen and understand those views so I am better informed about the decisions I make on the board.

Lets have a constructive debate though, what's your policy position going into the auDA election Simon?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I respect Josh for coming here and speaking his opinion but I can't help but feel an "out with the old, in with the new" is much needed.

Couldn't agree more with your mantra Jonathan 'out with the old, in with the new'. We need fresh faces and new ideas on the Board - but it will be tough, and every vote counts.

 

[neddy]

I'd like to bring up what happened to me earlier this year when I was sent an email about an au website I had with WA in the url address and description Title.

Someone had made a complaint about the domain and I was was asked by auda to take down my outbound links to my other websites that were not relevant to Western Australia.
I was gobsmacked to say the least, but was told the outbound links had to match the website or the domain would be PD

Don, I was having a chat with Honan this morning, and he brought up a good point.

He reckons you have the basis of a High Court challenge, because auDA are trampling on your rights for "free trade between the States of Australia". That is in the Constitution.

Go for it!

 

[joshrowe]

I have been away on holidays for awhile and have come back to see this thread. It's interesting to note that just weeks before an election, Josh (an auDA Board member) appears on this forum!

Why are you really here Josh? Perhaps auDA is concerned about the huge backlash by its members?

I am here (at the invitation of Ned) to better understand the needs of domainers so that the decisions I make on the auDA board a more informed.

The fact is, YOU had a chance to vote in favour of domain monetization, and you voted AGAINST the Minority Report, created by David Lye, Erhan and myself.

The proposal put forward in the minority report was not workable and did not receive support from the majority of the Names Policy Panel (representative of industry). As I suggested above - don't take this as a complete rejection. Use it as feedback to re-work, engage industry stakeholders and try again.

Just yelling at auDA and putting red unhappy emoticons directed at me won't achieve that outcome.

It seems that you are worried about me getting elected to the Board?

Is auDA concerned that someone outside the revolving door at the "boys club" will be elected to the Board? Heaven forbid that auDA members elect someone who knows something about domain monetization and has some real world experience!

Not at all. Those auDA members here who support your views should vote for you.

My point was, policy is not created by the auDA board.

That's the role of policy review panels. So, you should still stand for the board, but don't stop participating on the policy review panels - that is where your constructive engagement should be directed.

Guys, I look forward to your continued support. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me directly.

If you wish to have an open, honest and constructive debate on how to improve domain name policy then I am more than happy to participate.

If, alternatively, your approach is to attempt to discredit me publicly with baseless accusations then good luck!

 

[joshrowe]

Josh, thank you for engaging with us, and being prepared to debate your views.

Whilst there are not a lot of members asking questions at the moment, you can be guaranteed that many of them are reading this thread. 1167 views so far.

That's fantastic. I hope DNT forum members feel comfortable with joining the debate and that the "heated" conversation between Simon, Erhan and myself is mostly about election positioning - lets be honest! In fact, we are actually quite cordial to each other when we meet face-to-face!

Once again, the purpose of asking board candidates (like yourself) to express their beliefs, platform and agenda here on DNT is so we as individuals can decide
who best to vote for.

So far, there are a few issues that have been raised that I don't think have been answered as yet.

Where do you stand on these?

...

Yes, I will respond to these. In fact, I'll do that next (rather than getting caught up in the most recent volleys from S & E).

Many thanks, Ned (Admin)

Cheers

 

[FirstPageResults]

For one reason or another there seems to be some confusion about why Josh is here. Yes, it is close to the election and we haven't heard from him here on DNT before - but that is exactly why he has been inivited here to express his views.

Whilst you may not agree with everything that's said and done, theres no need to flame. We can all benefit from an open debate.

 

[Lemon]

That is incorrect (at least in my case), this was the first invitation I received from Ned to join this forum which I gratefully accepted.

As I said previously, I have attempted to engage the broader industry on issues regarding domain monetisation back as far as 2006, so suggesting that I'm flippantly joining this forum solely to seek votes for re-election is a weak argument.

Josh. Are you saying that as an active participant in the Australian domain industry you we're unaware that this forum existed?

As far as I am aware this is a public forum which has been running for several years now and requires no invitation to participate. I make my own conclusions from this.

Lemon

 

[neddy]

Josh. Are you saying that as an active participant in the Australian domain industry you we're unaware that this forum existed?

As far as I am aware this is a public forum which has been running for several years now and requires no invitation to participate. I make my own conclusions from this.

Lemon

That's a good point that you make Lemon. I'd be interested to know the answer to that myself.

I'd like to think that every man and their dog knew about DNT - and we had more active participants. But we're getting there slowly but surely.

It was my initiative last week to approach all candidates and invite them to participate in an election forum. A couple of people have criticized
me for doing this and giving " these newcomers" a voice on our platform. But I think it's a good thing to "show and tell". In some instances, we
can then judge people on their track record with auDA; and in others we can judge by what they have done in the .au space.

Had Josh just come on DNT without an invitation this close to the election, then I would have been leading the pack in condemning
him for being opportunistic. I can promise you that.

But it's not the case. So please, can we instead ask "the newcomers" where they stand on issues that affect us as domain owners.

We know where Erhan stands, as he has been a fairly active and consistent member of DNT. And quite rightly he has a lot of support on here.
You just have to read through this thread and others.

Simon also has some good support from domainers and domain owners, and he intends refreshing us soon as to why we should vote for him. This
is the third year that he is running, so he is persistent!

Please remember that all members have two votes, and there are two positions. And elections are still a month off.

 

[neddy]

As I said previously, I have also invited the other candidates to introduce themselves.

There are three:

David Goldstein - lots of people may know him from his newsletter the "Goldstein Report". New candidate, though has previously been an auDA board member. He has already signed up as a member.

Lisa Jarrett - she is an IP lawyer. New candidate. She has just signed up as a member.

Rosemary Sinclair - existing board member standing for re-election. I don't have an email address for her because she has recently taken on a new position. Jo Lim from auDA has kindly forwarded my email to her.

Just bear in mind that there are a lot of new auDA members this year - a lot of them were approved at last board meeting. A lot of these new members are not "domainers". So even though we have a lot of votes to vote for the candidates that will best represent us, the election will be hard fought.

So my thinking is that it is good to know where all other candidates stand on various issues. And to have an ongoing line of communication to them.

 

[Link]

It's good to see some robust discussion about issues in the lead up to the election. I think it's important that we can get a clear message of what each candidate believes, values, represents and will work for. It's also interesting to hear of the various panels that you have all worked on and the input you have had. We haven't heard much about that on the forum in the past - some of you have been very active behind the scenes!

Welcome also to Josh, it's good to have your contribution.

I also think the more we avoid mud-slinging the better. I'd much rather be sold a product on its benefits rather than just being told how poor the competition is. Erhan and Simon will have a lot of runs on the board from your long-standing relationships and participation on the forum.

Hats off to Ned for your work in bringing a variety of industry participants to DNTrade.

 

[L-Jarrett]

Thank you to Ned for inviting me to introduce myself as a candidate for the auDA Board elections in October. I accept with only minor trepidation!

My background: I am an intellectual property lawyer based in Adelaide, and I regularly advise clients in relation to the identification, protection and enforcement of their IP rights, including on the Internet and in relation to domain names, as well as assisting with a range of IT transactions. We advise a broad range of clients, which includes domain owners and trade mark owners. My technical expertise is in the area of IP and IT law, and I have a strong understanding of how the auDA rules and systems apply.

I was a member of the recent auDA Names Policy Panel – I think the other members of that Panel (which included David, Simon, Erhan and Josh) would agree that I made a valuable contribution to the discussion and analysis of the issues facing auDA and the broader domain name community.

I don't consider myself to be one-sided in terms of what I stand for. It's clear that there are a lot of challenges facing the domain name industry, and a lot of competing rights and interests, and in my view these need to be properly balanced. That necessarily needs to involve consultation with constituencies to ensure that there's a better understanding of how the industry operates (or wishes to operate) and then investing time and energy into finding workable solutions which address those issues.

Whilst I am relatively new to auDA (and even newer to this forum) I believe that I would make a worthwhile contribution and offer a fresh and balanced perspective on domain name issues, if appointed to the Board.

I appreciate it's difficult to get to know someone from a single post in this forum but hopefully that's given you an idea of who I am and what I think I can offer as a Demand Class representative on the auDA Board.

 

[techmo]

It's good to see some robust discussion about issues in the lead up to the election.

I also think the more we avoid mud-slinging the better. I'd much rather be sold a product on its benefits rather than just being told how poor the competition is.

Hats off to Ned for your work in bringing a variety of industry participants to DNTrade.

Bingo Link, I second everything you said. Look forward to more discussion on this seminal issue and learning more about the domaining industry as I go along.

 

[neddy]

That's a great introductory post Lisa - thank you for responding to my invitation.

I'm sure you'll get a few questions in the coming weeks as to where you stand on various issues. This is a great place to articulate
your views - and also to learn what the important issues face us as "domainers" and domain owners.

I do have to start the ball rolling with what may be a cheeky question. Please forgive me!

Do you mainly work on "the dark side"?

In other words, do you mostly represent those that seek to take domains off domainers? (I qualify the question by saying I'm not talking
about blatant TM infringements - that's fair enough).

Or have you also represented people defending their right to hold a domain name?

Cheers, Ned

 

[David Goldstein]

Hi all,

Just a brief introduction of myself so I can get started on the Domain Name Trade forum, and which I also posted on the introductions page.

As some of you know, I am a candidate at the upcoming auDA board election.

I have been involved in the domain name industry since 2000 when I commenced working for the Austrian registry nic.at for about nine months where I was providing some policy advice and researching domain name issues.

Then in 2002 after doing it as a hobby since 2000 I commenced providing my domain name news service to the DNS list here in Australia with this month being the ninth anniversary of auDA being my first client. I now have about 15 clients in total, about half of these being registries.

For a number of years now I have also written for the DomainNews.com and DomainPulse.com blogs, and provided regular articles for the eBrand Services website.

I am also an occasional attendee at ICANN meetings and have attended the last five Domain Pulse meetings, an annual meeting for the domain name industry in the German speaking countries.

Through all this I believe I have gained a unique insight into the domain name "business" and I would like to use this knowledge to serve again as an auDA board member.

In Australia I was an auDA board member from 2005 to 2007 and I was a member of the Names Policy Panels in 2007 and 2010.

If elected I would like to pursue some of the issues I was supporting on the recent Names Policy Panel, and also on the Names Policy Panel in 2007. These include reviewing the relevance of the close and substantiation rule, registrations at the second level and opening up registrations of .AU domains on a wider scale.

I know this list is primarily for domainers and while it is the industry as a whole I am considering, I do believe that overall changes I support will benefit all registrants, including domainers.

I am more than happy to discuss any of these issues further if anyone wishes, either here, by email (david@goldsteinreport.com) or phone (0418 228 605).

Cheers
David

 

[Honan]

It is a shame that the recently grown reformist vote will be split 3 ways for 2 seats. As a result all 3 might miss out

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

but there are only 2 domainer community candidates including myself

 

[Honan]

but there are only 2 domainer community candidates including myself

Yes, you are correct
I was having trouble counting
Sorry

 

[Simon Johnson]

It is a shame that the recently grown reformist vote will be split 3 ways for 2 seats. As a result all 3 might miss out

I disagree. Unfortunately its easy for people to claim they are a "domainer" or "domainer friendly" or whatever term is fashionable.

Lets get real - the fact is, if these people were pro domain investment, then they would have supported the Names Policy Panel Minority Report. The only names on that report were David Lye, Erhan and myself!

Lets give DNTrade members some credit here, I don't see anyone falling for this.

 

[David Goldstein]

Simon,

Your holier than thou comments suggesting you are a capable board member of an organisation are very dubious. One clear example I can give are potentially defamatory comments you made earlier this year relating to auDA and subsequently were forced to issue an apology and delete the article.

It's one thing to be critical of auDA, but it's another to write as you did earlier this year. For this reason I do not see you fit and proper to be an auDA board member.

Further, during the Names Policy Panel meeting you were against virtually all, if not all, the proposals I was suggesting that I have outlined earlier. I see your views as being domainer UNFRIENDLY. Surely with appropriate policies in place including sunrise and landrush periods, domainers can only stand to benefit. As would I believe the whole domain name community.

I also refer to a recent survey for the .NZ Domain Name Commissioner reported (not very well) for Computerworld that found over half the respondents (52%) would prefer a name.nz domain while, presumably the rest would prefer name.co.nz, and that is when people aren't familiar with the proposal. Using this example, and examples from other ccTLDs, it is clear people prefer registrations at the second level.

Further, you claim there were only three of you who supported the minority report. However I saw the minority report and would have been prepared to sign it however it needed more work for me to support it. It was clearly in need of much editing, and some of the comments about it on the Names Panel list at the time raised valid issues as to whether it was appropriate. The general thrust of the report was important, but the paper as presented to the Panel was in need of more work to get at least some more support.

Regards,
David

 

[Shane]

I'm a demand class member and will be voting in this year's election.

I own a decent number of domains and derive the majority of my income from online activities, which include developed .au domains.

I've never had any run-ins with auDA over my domains, I've never received any legal threats over my domains, and I've never had any other issues that have caused problems.

I've sold a handful of .au domains, however I've never had the need to sell one within the first six months. I take the time to develop all of my domains properly, so I've never lived with the fear that I may lose any domains due to being outside of the monetisation policy. Trademarks and misspellings I avoid.

I don't care if certain policy changes may increase the value of our domains, because to be honest I don't want prices to get any higher right now. That may sound crazy, but I'm an accumulator rather than a seller. If domain values halved tomorrow I'd be a happy man, because I have no need or desire to sell any of my domains, but a hunger to buy more quality domains.

I'm sure I'm not the only demand class member who fits a similar profile.

With that in mind, I'm wondering what benefits the candidates think they can offer my business, and why I should vote for them...?