auDA Media Release: Should .au be opened up for direct registration?

[snoopy]

Here's a question:
Do you 'expect' to see the same business appear when direct navigating/searching?

A domainer wouldn't, I think the general public would. The names are only very subtly different and are going to have similar content.

 

[findtim]

A domainer wouldn't, I think the general public would. The names are only very subtly different and are going to have similar content.

i agree with snoopy, OF COURSE there will be confusion, on one had auda state what a great job they have done with the .com.au "namespace" and now suggest it needs a change !
a quick story, honest, ...... last week i emailed one of the TOP SEO GURUS in australia just to say thank you for some info we exchanged over a cold beer and the email bounced !!!!!! WHY, because his email was JUST .com , not .com.au
i said " mate, i personally would EXPECT your email to be .com.au as you are australian" .
his reply was " we own both .com and .com.au and tim you are right......... i'll get it fixed "
NOW, this leads to the fact of someone emailing for a quote on a job to a business WHICH ISN'T the one they have selected
how can you have dubbodentist.com.au and dubbodentist.au ! if its 2 different businesses !

tim

 

[snoopy]

NOW, this leads to the fact of someone emailing for a quote on a job to a business WHICH ISN'T the one they have selected
how can you have dubbodentist.com.au and dubbodentist.au ! if its 2 different businesses

I think the people who will probably suffer most are those who chose .au because they think it is shorter. They'll lose a lot of traffic/email to the .com.au either because someone already owned it or because someone saw they were using a .au without the .com.au and decides to take it.

 

[findtim]

either way its a mess, i previously used the example of " telecom/telstra" changing our phone numbers eg: adding a "3" to all melbourne phone numbers.
they didn't make you purchase the new number, they didn't charge us twice for phone calls, and it took YEARSSSSSSSSSSS for people to get use to it.
and to say again, the cost to business was huge, new business cards, car signage etcccccccccc
but at least they did one thing correct and that was NOT allow ANY question that your clients could call you and nobody else was able to get YOUR number, there was no fight for it, no charge for it, no auction for it, no 5 years "or else......."
so i can't see why we are looking at the uk and nz mobiles which have clearly failed when we have a proven model in australia, just do what telstra did....... give the new domains away to the .com.au owner, is just to simple for people to get ?

tim

 

[Rhythm]

or the .net.au owner

 

[findtim]

or the .net.au owner

thats the big issue ! is it " which came first, the chicken or the egg" or is it " the chicken or the chicken FROM the egg " ?
meaning if the .net.au has had continuous registration but the .com.au was picked up on drops, who do you favour ? or do we get into an auction battle where only one party really gains......... auda ! , or do they delegate this task to a company?

hmmm, for some reason "world cup " comes to mind ?

.com.au has proven to be king over and over again, if you ask anyone in the street they will say .com.au, but lets do another $1 .net.au sale !!!!! just to stir up the pot.
tim

 

[snoopy]

either way its a mess, i previously used the example of " telecom/telstra" changing our phone numbers eg: adding a "3" to all melbourne phone numbers.
they didn't make you purchase the new number, they didn't charge us twice for phone calls, and it took YEARSSSSSSSSSSS for people to get use to it.
and to say again, the cost to business was huge, new business cards, car signage etcccccccccc
but at least they did one thing correct and that was NOT allow ANY question that your clients could call you and nobody else was able to get YOUR number, there was no fight for it, no charge for it, no auction for it, no 5 years "or else......."
so i can't see why we are looking at the uk and nz mobiles which have clearly failed when we have a proven model in australia, just do what telstra did....... give the new domains away to the .com.au owner, is just to simple for people to get ?

tim

With the Telstra example the change was needed because of space running out. With domains the reason is to create a new revenue channel. The secondary reason is a shorter url, but that comes at a large cost in my view in terms of consumer confusion.

So for AUDA to say ok, we will duplicate all those domains, you pay no more, we'll change it over, there would be no financial benefit in that happening, so it will never happen that way.

 

[snoopy]

The .net.au owner will suffer no more than he is suffering now. He chose a bad url and he'll still have a bad url. In my view Auda shouldn't try to help people making bad decisions. e.g. if you give the owner of realestate.net.au the chance to get realestate.au that is a bad outcome in my view. It is like allowing the Walgett football club to join the AFL. Watch as spectators desert.

 

[Rhythm]

Is there likely to be another panel to discuss how this happens or is that expected to be investigated by the current panel?

 

[findtim]

as far as i am aware the panel presents recommendations to the board who then vote on it, i'm not sure of the actual procedure but they have one.
as there are many different questions being asked some may get passed and others not is my guess.
tim

 

[findtim]

Is there likely to be another panel to discuss how this happens or is that expected to be investigated by the current panel?

your sentence suggests its all "done and dusted" , this is not the case, there have been many opinions sent to the committee to sort through, certainly not enough in my view.
tim

 

[neddy]

Is there likely to be another panel to discuss how this happens or is that expected to be investigated by the current panel?

Have a read of the terms of reference for the Names Panel. It explains all.

Bear in mind there are quite few months to go to get to the end game, and there will be a second public consultation (at this stage it is planned for September).

As I said in my blog, the Names Panel meets tomorrow in Melbourne to start going through all the responses. It should be interesting

 

[Horshack]

The .net.au owner will suffer no more than he is suffering now. He chose a bad url and he'll still have a bad url. In my view Auda shouldn't try to help people making bad decisions. e.g. if you give the owner of realestate.net.au the chance to get realestate.au that is a bad outcome in my view. It is like allowing the Walgett football club to join the AFL. Watch as spectators desert.

I don't agree Snoopy. I'm not a net.au fan and only hold a few mainly for protection reasons but if these domains have been offered for registration on an equal basis I think the rights of the holders need to be considered on an equal basis. This appears to be the way that it was considered in NZ.

 

[findtim]

horshack, how can it be offered on an equal basis? the only option is a "profiteering auction" and thats why that $1 .net.au sale i feel was a bad decision.
furthermore, if the .au does happen and they give first bite to longevity then currently buying drops would stop and given 99% of drop purchases are the .com.au its bye bye.
tim

 

[Horshack]

horshack, how can it be offered on an equal basis? the only option is a "profiteering auction" and thats why that $1 .net.au sale i feel was a bad decision.
furthermore, if the .au does happen and they give first bite to longevity then currently buying drops would stop and given 99% of drop purchases are the .com.au its bye bye.
tim

Hi Tim, I was saying that net.au domains are currently offered for registration on an equal basis .com.au so should have equal rights with regards to access to a new shorter extension. NZ went this way also. I'm not a lawyer but giving .com.au holders preference over .net.au holders may be a legal minefield.

 

[findtim]

may be a legal minefield

thats why this conversation keeps going around in circles.

tim

 

[Horshack]

Yep, a shorter extension certainly seems like a pointless exercise!

 

[findtim]

expensive exercise, i sense more people will loose then those few that will gain and i feel anyone with a financial connection to the result should exclude themselves from making the final decision, which is a tough one because "financial" could mean both negative financially and positive financially.
but the wheels are in motion aren't they !
it is obvious that someone would vote no if it meant an increase to their ongoing fees, its obvious if i was someone that will gain a profit from the multiple new registrations that i would vote yes.
so unless there is no conflict of interest by the decision makers how can a decision possibly be made?
and we go around in circles again.
tim

 

[Rhythm]

horshack, how can it be offered on an equal basis? the only option is a "profiteering auction" and thats why that $1 .net.au sale i feel was a bad decision.
tim

Auction is not the only option. Think gTLD contention set.
http://www.business2community.com/tech-gadgets/words-worth-contention-sets-new-gtld-auctions-0890965

 

[neddy]

If I may proffer an opinion, I just don't think anyone should get there "knickers in a knot" at this stage of the exercise. There is a long way to go.

Why should we follow what New Zealand did? Why not follow what the UK did? Or Japan? Or we could just do our own thing based on a hybrid situation. Or we could nothing at all.

All options are on the table.

And there are a bunch of very sensible and experienced people on the Names Panel. And whilst it is fair to say that there may be some different agendas, I believe a sensible consensus decision will be arrived at in the fullness of time. Imho.

Lastly, bear in mind that regardless of what the Names Panel ends up recommending to the auDA Board, the Board in its wisdom may choose not to action the recommendations.