auDA Complaints

[neddy]

The complaints system at auDA is possibly to be in the spotlight again (unfortunately).

I'll write more about this in the very near future (I won't share any names or identifying details) - but suffice to say a member here has very recently been subject to a
domain audit because of one anonymous complaint. He is now at risk of losing over 100 other domains. A lovely Christmas present indeed.

There have been many posts in the past about complaints and the power of auDA. Vanessa and her colleagues at auDA do a great job in knocking many complaints on
the head before they even see the light of day; and/or allowing domain owners the opportunity to rectify or clarify issues where possible.

However, I and many others still have a major issue with some aspects of the system.

Here is an old post where I highlighted an instance where a person delighted in making anonymous complaints to auDA. (That post on Flying Solo was since deleted, but fortunately I copied it at the time).

https://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections/3630-auda-board-elections-25.html#post28084

Erhan made this great post back then:

These type of people are the perfect example of bad faith complainants. He needs to get used to living in a democracy where people can (within the bounds of the law) display whatever they like on their websites. Maybe he might want to move to North Korea or China where he could take on a role as an internet censor.

This guy would be the first to scream if someone restricted him from expressing himself on his own website.

This is also a by product of having a complaints based system in the form auDA currently has - you could stop people like this by doing 2 things, (which auDA should do), (a) impose a complaint fee; and (b) disclose his identity and a copy of his complaint to the domain registrant. These simple reforms would stamp this bad faith behaviour out.

I like the suggestions in the last paragraph - a complaint fee; and full disclosure.

Erhan, now that you're a director, how do we go about getting this changed (or at least discussed at panel or board level)? Is there anything we can do to get this in motion?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

There have been many posts in the past about complaints and the power of auDA. Vanessa and her colleagues at auDA do a great job in knocking many complaints on
the head before they even see the light of day; and/or allowing domain owners the opportunity to rectify or clarify issues where possible.

Neddy I agree with you that Vanessa (and the other auDA Staff who deal with complaints) do a good job in addressing bad faith complaints. I have seen a number of cases recently where people have tried to use the complaints process for some ulterior purpose, in one case the 'IT guy' said he back orders a domain name then lodges a complaint. Fortunately the DNTrade member who received these threats from the IT Guy kept all of the emails as evidence of bad faith. I recommend that where members receive threats of complaints, which are clearly in bad faith, keep copies of all of the correspondence to show auDA.

I stand by my position from 2011, I personally believe that disclosure of a complainant would help to alleviate bad faith complaints. But we need to look at complaints in the context of the industry, as many of the more experienced members will remember, complaints were dime a dozen, that is no longer the case. I think that there are a few reasons for that (a) the good work that auDA staff do in handling bad faith complaints; (b) domainers play by the rules, so the obvious policy breaches don't occur to the extent that they once did; - these are just a few of the reasons.

As for the case you are referring to, I can't comment on specific cases (and I hate to see people lose domains), but what I do recommend is that everyone familiarise themselves with auDA policy (this forum is the best place to learn, if you are not sure make a post and ask a question). While the policy might not be perfect, domainers can successfully operate their businesses without any issue, Ned, you are a perfect example of this (as are the majority of people on DNTrade).

As for changing things, I have previously raised this issue and am happy to raise it again, I would also like to see DnTrade members nominating for auDA Panels. The Panels have a huge amount of power in changing policy, but historically apart from myself, Ned, George Pongas, Stuart Benjamin, Simon Johnson and David Lye, no one else has been involved from DNTrade.

I am always happy to chat to anyone who might have any questions, just PM me or pick up the phone

 

[neddy]

I stand by my position from 2011, I personally believe that disclosure of a complainant would help to alleviate bad faith complaints. But we need to look at complaints in the context of the industry, as many of the more experienced members will remember, complaints were dime a dozen, that is no longer the case. I think that there are a few reasons for that (a) the good work that auDA staff do in handling bad faith complaints; (b) domainers play by the rules, so the obvious policy breaches don't occur to the extent that they once did; - these are just a few of the reasons.

As for the case you are referring to, I can't comment on specific cases (and I hate to see people lose domains), but what I do recommend is that everyone familiarise themselves with auDA policy (this forum is the best place to learn, if you are not sure make a post and ask a question). While the policy might not be perfect, domainers can successfully operate their businesses without any issue, Ned, you are a perfect example of this (as are the majority of people on DNTrade).

As for changing things, I have previously raised this issue and am happy to raise it again, I would also like to see DnTrade members nominating for auDA Panels. The Panels have a huge amount of power in changing policy, but historically apart from myself, Ned, George Pongas, Stuart Benjamin, Simon Johnson and David Lye, no one else has been involved from DNTrade.

I'm glad you stand by your original position Erhan - you are a person of integrity. So as I asked in my original post, how do we try and change this? What are the mechanics in doing so?

I understand you can't comment on specific cases (not that I've raised one as yet). I also understand that people operating in the industry have to play by the rules.

But there are no TAFE or correspondence courses or university degrees on how to do so properly and exactly. Just a myriad of policy to read through - some of which has been (and still can be)
interpreted in different ways. e.g. domain monetisation (you made some comments about this many times).

So what I'm concerned about are the new domainers or domain investors. I'm sure you and everyone here joins with me in saying that they should get a fair go - if they make a mistake, education
is far better than a punitive punishment.

So yes, if they register or purchase a domain that is someone else's business name, TM or similar, then they must lose it - and learn from that.

But imho, if there is one anonymous complaint on one domain that doesn't fall into this category, then that domain should be the only one that is dealt with. Not suddenly a decision to audit all
the rest of the person's portfolio and decide that they should lose the lot (unless they can justify why they should keep them).

Can you imagine if a Council tried to strip a property developer of all his land bank if he had contravened on just one property? There would be an outcry second to none.

Domainers and domain investors (even experienced ones) will continue to make mistakes occasionally. But auDA should educate these people in the first instance; and in the second instance,
only punish in an appropriate fashion.

Imho.

 

[findtim]

Can you imagine if a Council tried to strip a property developer of all his land bank if he had contravened on just one property? There would be an outcry second to none.

I agree, from what I have heard and read it seems "keep your head down or it will get chopped off" and I know a number of domainers that do just that, making a mistake with one domain and getting audited seems ridiculous to me.

...... no one else has been involved from DNTrade

yes, but chris, peter and I made it to the auda xmas party so maybe there's some new movement on that field of involvement and we can encourage others as well.

tim

 

[plano]

So yes, if they register or purchase a domain that is someone else's business name, TM or similar, then they must lose it - and learn from that.

I would rather not distract people from the important topic of this thread but I must ask are you suggesting that if someone has registered the business name "Domain Names For Sale" and somebody else later registers the domain name 'DomainNamesForSale dot com dot au' then the person who registers the domain name 'must lose it'?

 

[neddy]

I would rather not distract people from the important topic of this thread but I must ask are you suggesting that if someone has registered the business name "Domain Names For Sale" and somebody else later registers the domain name 'DomainNamesForSale dot com dot au' then the person who registers the domain name 'must lose it'?

No.

I was generalising to try and get a point across. e.g. If you register FredsPools.com.au and then try and sell the domain to the bloke who owns a business called Fred's Pools, then you will lose the domain if Fred complains to auDA (unless your name is also Fred and you also own a pool business). And so you should.

There are also many threads / posts in this forum about exceptions to the rule.

This is a must read:

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/current-policies/2012-05/

Clause 11 is the really important one. In particular read 11.4 (and the last sentence therein). Bolding emphasis is mine.

11.4 The second condition is that “the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered”. This condition is intended to ensure that domain monetisation is not used as a cover for cybersquatting or other misleading or fraudulent activity. In determining whether a registrant is in breach of this condition, auDA will take into account whether the domain name is a generic word or may have an alternative meaning which is not related to a specific entity, person or brand.

However this thread is about the complaints policy and then subsequent portfolio audits, so as you said, let's not get distracted!

 

[neddy]

I think there may well be a happy ending to this.

The member concerned has been overseas for Christmas (which made the timing of all this rather hard), but apparently an email came in from auDA late Friday with some encouraging news. (He let me know about this early this afternoon).

I'll let him elaborate on this further if he wants to - suffice to say, special kudos to both the legal professional who helped him with responses to auDA; and to the management at auDA who have now offered him an opportunity to rectify the situation (as I said, they are great to deal with if you're prepared to do the right thing).

P.S. There is a salutary lesson to learn from this, and that is if you are going to rely on "domain monetisation" as your "close and substantial" connection; any parked page must be compliant with policy. As I understand it, this member had some parked pages with Netfleet - and, as discussed in this thread, these pages DO NOT CURRENTLY COMPLY! Even Anthony P agreed.

P.P.S. I would still like to see the complaint procedure revised! How do we get that instigated Erhan?

 

[DomainNames]

I think there may well be a happy ending to this.

The member concerned has been overseas for Christmas (which made the timing of all this rather hard), but apparently an email came in from auDA late Friday with some encouraging news. (He let me know about this early this afternoon).

I'll let him elaborate on this further if he wants to - suffice to say, special kudos to both the legal professional who helped him with responses to auDA; and to the management at auDA who have now offered him an opportunity to rectify the situation (as I said, they are great to deal with if you're prepared to do the right thing).

P.S. There is a salutary lesson to learn from this, and that is if you are going to rely on "domain monetisation" as your "close and substantial" connection; any parked page must be compliant with policy. As I understand it, this member had some parked pages with Netfleet - and, as discussed in this thread, these pages DO NOT CURRENTLY COMPLY! Even Anthony P agreed.

P.P.S. I would still like to see the complaint procedure revised! How do we get that instigated Erhan?

Can we get netfleet to clarify why their monetisation or parked pages dont meet policy or when they will fix. thought they where pretty tight with auDA, ausregistry and policy

 

[findtim]

this member had some parked pages with Netfleet - and, as discussed in this thread, these pages DO NOT CURRENTLY COMPLY! Even Anthony P agreed.

neds not talking about me but I must admit I am lazy on moving sites off netfleet to ones that comply with auda . it would be good that NF had an automated compliant page.

as others have said "when will that happen" ?

tim

 

[StuartB]

Ned has hit it on the head - if you want to play, you need to know the rules.
If you have amassed a couple of hundred names - it would be worth reading the policies to make sure you are complying. There is also no shortage of info on DNT.
However, like many things in life- sometimes this stuff gets away on you. I lost a batch of domains last year, because I hadn't kept up with my own paperwork for renewals.

But there are two things to come out of this discussion:
1. I will raise a question with auDA about the logic of secret complaints. Not being a lawyer, there may be a "legal" reason for this to happen. But my gut feel is that it is unfair for someone to make a complaint (when they benefit from the outcome) anonymously.
2. Perhaps auDA could put out a "How To" document that puts all of these issues in very clear speak, that can be circulated amount the industry.

 

[petermeadit]

I agree, from what I have heard and read it seems "keep your head down or it will get chopped off" and I know a number of domainers that do just that, making a mistake with one domain and getting audited seems ridiculous to me.



yes, but chris, peter and I made it to the auda xmas party so maybe there's some new movement on that field of involvement and we can encourage others as well.

tim

Yes Tim, several of us from DNTrade did go to the auDA xmas drinks. I also spoke with several panel members out of interest to see how it works.

In general I do feel that the anonymous complaints being acted upon, in principle it feels unfair. If an anonymous person is aware that you may be in breach of policy, and they stand to benefit from it, then lodges a compliant, ouch.

I have seen this in other industries too, like the AMA (American Medical Association) we were doing quite well with an SEO campaign, to the competition lodged an anonymous complaint and forced changes to the campaign to be made, which were very borderline issues. That hurt.

 

[neddy]

if you want to play, you need to know the rules.
If you have amassed a couple of hundred names - it would be worth reading the policies to make sure you are complying. There is also no shortage of info on DNT.
However, like many things in life- sometimes this stuff gets away on you. I lost a batch of domains last year, because I hadn't kept up with my own paperwork for renewals.

But there are two things to come out of this discussion:
1. I will raise a question with auDA about the logic of secret complaints. Not being a lawyer, there may be a "legal" reason for this to happen. But my gut feel is that it is unfair for someone to make a complaint (when they benefit from the outcome) anonymously.
2. Perhaps auDA could put out a "How To" document that puts all of these issues in very clear speak, that can be circulated amount the industry.

Rules are important - equally so is fairness and equity in applying them.

I accept that there will always complaints about domains - some will be justified, and others will not be. And that auDA staff deal with these very professionally (in the main).

But my concerns remain:

But imho, if there is one anonymous complaint on one domain that doesn't fall into this category, then that domain should be the only one that is dealt with. Not suddenly a decision to audit all
the rest of the person's portfolio and decide that they should lose the lot (unless they can justify why they should keep them).

Domainers and domain investors (even experienced ones) will continue to make mistakes occasionally. But auDA should educate these people in the first instance; and in the second instance,
only punish in an appropriate fashion.

As stated earlier, I also liked Erhan's original suggestion:

A complaint fee; and full disclosure.

So let me also ask you this question Stu. Now that you're a director, how do we go about getting this changed (or at least discussed at panel or board level)? Is there anything we can do to get this in motion? Does a letter need to be written to the Board?

 

[neddy]

This next bit is particularly relevant to newer domainers (and a refresher to some older hands). It may help avoid (or deal with) complaints.

I've posted about this a few times over the years, about three years ago (when I was in the chair at DNT), I asked Jo Lim of auDA (Chief Operations & Policy Officer)
if she could give domainers some written insight into the "Domain Monetisation Policy". She very kindly wrote this blog article which is well worth a read:

http://www.auda.org.au/blog/domain-monetisation-policy-explained/

Bear in mind that the Domain Monetisation Policy no longer exists as an individual policy - but it has been incorporated into the 2012-04 - Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Ned

 

[sirrobin]

thanks Ned that was very informative and the first time i have fully understood the current policy on monetization