AUDA membership made easy

[Scott.L]

Hey Scott, simple answer, because clause 9.9 of the auDA Constitution requires it. This is a common practice with similar entities

9.9 Determination of Application by the Board
a. The Board must determine whether or not to approve each application for Membership at the next Board meeting after receipt of the application.

So the board can pick and choose who they want? Now I wonder, What selection criteria is used to approve or decline applicants? it seems rather excessive for a board to filter its own membership bias, especially when the board is voted into the roles they maintain via its membership. Im not suggesting conspiracy theories, Im simply suggesting that this clause seems to conflict with the interest of the internet community at large...there is what approx 100 members [demand / supply] voting for the board? 1.7 million registrants and 100 people decide who runs the show?

what other government endorsed entities empowered by policy creation, power to directly affect economic efficiency actually approves a membership bias?

 

[findtim]

for something now so important to every business "self regulatory" no longer seems to be suitable.
in these recent debates here it would seem that the Constitution needs an overhaul, lack of membership seems to create many problems.
`its been a long time since i registered a domain and received ANYTHING from auda letting me know they exist

tim

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

9.9 Determination of Application by the Board
a. The Board must determine whether or not to approve each application for Membership at the next Board meeting after receipt of the application.

So the board can pick and choose who they want? Now I wonder, What selection criteria is used to approve or decline applicants? it seems rather excessive for a board to filter its own membership bias, especially when the board is voted into the roles they maintain via its membership. Im not suggesting conspiracy theories, Im simply suggesting that this clause seems to conflict with the interest of the internet community at large...there is what approx 100 members [demand / supply] voting for the board? 1.7 million registrants and 100 people decide who runs the show?

what other government endorsed entities empowered by policy creation, power to directly affect economic efficiency actually approves a membership bias?

I can tell you that the board doesn't pick and choose. auDA usually verifies that the applicant is a real person, gives the board a list of names and the board accepts it.

I am not aware of a single occasion where the board has rejected a membership application. Let me put this proposition to you, what if someone tried to sign up fake members and that person's agenda was to stop monetisation (or domaining) ? Isnt it a good thing that the board could prevent that.

There is no conflict at all, i'm not sure if you are aware of the history but registrants and others have not been interested in joining due to a variety of reasons. You also need to be careful what you wish for, the bulk of the community do not like our 'domainer' community, and they massively out number domainers....I regularly talk to people who have some odd ideas, like a person should only be allowed to own one domain name, domain names should be purchased from Australia Post after you provide 100 points of ID and other mad ideas which are totally unworkable.

 

[Shane]

When I submitted my application as a demand class member it was queried as their records showed that I had a reseller account and should therefore be joining as a supply member. It was quickly sorted out (the reseller account was from almost a decade ago and had no active domains) and I was able to join in the appropriate class.

As Erhan pointed out, it's better that they do this checking rather than letting someone sign up dozens of fake members for a relatively paltry sum each.

 

[findtim]

i've always had a reseller account and still have, and it was not questioned when i joined.
tim

 

[Scott.L]

s. You also need to be careful what you wish for, the bulk of the community do not like our 'domainer' community, and they massively out number domainers....

Luckily -

3.2 Activities
c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
d. the promotion of fair trading;

I'm not sure what your intent was to suggest such an analogy on a domainer forum it kinda flies in the face of the auDA constitution stated above; Without domainers how would auDA fairly settle the trading of domain names within the market? Would auDA hold an in-house auction for the domain name and it goes to the highest bidder? Or would the registries hold the cards and become the “domainers” also, who brokers the deals between two companies should one seek to sell an interest in their domain name, the auDA or the registries? The domainer is the key to a successful domain market place.

What has the auDA done to ensure the domainer market is informed and structured.
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;

The entire premise of a domainer market is to provide efficiency of purchasing a premium domain name, that’s capitalism and free trade, if it weren't, auDA would simply be an autocratic dictator.

I can tell you that the board doesn't pick and choose. auDA usually verifies that the applicant is a real person, gives the board a list of names and the board accepts it.

so a PTY LTD company is a real person? Surely membership can be automated, in 15 years auDA managed only 188 members?

what if someone tried to sign up fake members and that person's agenda was to stop monetisation (or domaining) ? Isnt it a good thing that the board could prevent that.

9.1 (b) Membership is held by a Legal Person, and each Legal Person may only hold one membership in auDA.
But, This doesn't stop a PTY LTD company having membership, directors, partners, even staff of the PTY LTD company can all sign up...10 memberships all of which can be influenced by a common motive/agenda. I see Your company is a good example of holding multiple memberships on the demand side [its not wrong according to the auDA constitution] ...so how can you determine a member is "fake" if he or she agrees with the sentiment of another? if the numbers support the views then changes are made. Free membership means increasing the numbers so manipulators work harder to achieve their goals. It makes me wonder how many on the demand side are not influenced by certain agendas within such a small membership circle? Namely, an Indifference towards domainers.

 

[snoopy]

I'm not sure what your intent was to suggest such an analogy on a domainer forum it kinda flies in the face of the auDA constitution stated above; Without domainers how would auDA fairly settle the trading of domain names within the market? Would auDA hold an in-house auction for the domain name and it goes to the highest bidder? Or would the registries hold the cards and become the “domainers” also, who brokers the deals between two companies should one seek to sell an interest in their domain name, the auDA or the registries? The domainer is the key to a successful domain market place.

That is 100% fact though, most people do not like domain traders. As a profession it is one step up from email marketing in public perception so I agree with the idea that if "what the general public want" dictated policy there might be some bad outcomes for domainers. Think of it like realestate agents, lawyers, used car salesmen, stock traders. The general public isn't very like to support us with much.

How would the world get on without domainers? Just have a prohibition on trading, that is how it used to work for .com.au.

auDA Policy 2005-05 "Prohibition on Sale of Domain Name"

 

[findtim]

"person's agenda was to stop monetisation "
well in effect that can happen now without the other baggage mentioned, one could say that in fact it similar IS HAPPENIG now through the influence of the registras and the profits .au will reap them.
increased membership would create a fairer platform where board nominees had to work on policy and goals to get votes, instead right now its a "boys club" mentality maintaining the balance of power, the odd person with a weird idea would still need more "pauline hanson" supporters if membership increased.
tim

 

[findtim]

, most people do not like domain traders

they are the ones that have just woken up from a 20 year sleep and said " ohhh, i better register my domain name "
Still to this day you can not register a business name that is to close to anothers, that would be like once optometrist.com.au is taken you can't register optometrists, or visa versa who ever came first.

don't cry poor over an opportunity you only now know you missed and making us pay for defensive registrations SUCKS.

tim

 

[snoopy]

"person's agenda was to stop monetisation "
well in effect that can happen now without the other baggage mentioned, one could say that in fact it similar IS HAPPENIG now through the influence of the registras and the profits .au will reap them.
increased membership would create a fairer platform where board nominees had to work on policy and goals to get votes, instead right now its a "boys club" mentality maintaining the balance of power, the odd person with a weird idea would still need more "pauline hanson" supporters if membership increased.
tim

The way I see it, anything that benefits both Ausregistry, AUDA, registrars/resellers at the same time is going to get past when those conflicted people still vote. There is always going to be the numbers. That is without any domainer elected members "crossing the floor" and supporting it. I wonder if anyone at all voted against it?

I don't know if it is a "boys club" or not. I think it i people looking after their own interests, entirely logical. I think the issue in the way the board is structured and also with there seemingly being no issues with those with conflicts of interest voting.

AUDA makes its money from getting paid on the basis of domain registrations and licence fees so you've got 7 out of 11 people on the "supply" side. A yes vote is likely a couple of million dollars per year to AUDA. They probably shouldn't be voting either.

 

[findtim]

AUDA makes its money from getting paid on the basis of domain registrations and licence fees so you've got 7 out of 11 people on the "supply" side. A yes vote is likely a couple of million dollars per year to AUDA. They probably shouldn't be voting either.

totally agree, auda should be independ and not thinking about revenue, domain regos will happen or not, a slowing of domain name registrations should mean you tighten your belt and do a good budget each year, after all renewals are passive income.
people not renewing opens up more hand registerable names as only a VERY SMALL % of drops are purchased, i have picked up some nice little domains that i saw on drops but didn't bid and took my chance, and i am still able to hand reg some nice domains for clients entering the market, i ALWAYS find a suitable name hand reg for new clients, but offer a service to find out if a better one is for sale.
growth is good, i have nothing against that, but not at the expense of those already involved, an effective doubling of fees is ridiculious in my view.
.tim

this thread is getting a little off track i think?

 

[Scott.L]

auDA Policy 2005-05 "Prohibition on Sale of Domain Name" [ /QUOTE]

c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
conflicted with "Prohibition on Sale of Domain Names" When this was changed everyone finally made some money.

The way I see it, anything that benefits both Ausregistry, AUDA, registrars/resellers at the same time is going to get past when those conflicted people still vote.

Ausregistry is on both sides, supply and demand - who knows how many on the demand side are actually associated with this company.

 

[Scott.L]

c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
conflicted with "Prohibition on Sale of Domain Names" When this was changed everyone finally made some money.

The way I see it, anything that benefits both Ausregistry, AUDA, registrars/resellers at the same time is going to get past when those conflicted people still vote.

Ausregistry is on both sides, supply and demand - who knows how many on the demand side are actually associated with this company

 

[neddy]

As I said in a galaxy far, far away, auDA don't really give a rats rectum about what domainers think. That's the brutal truth. How many people on this forum are there that actually speak up? Five? Maybe ten when the wind is blowing in the right direction. And how many of them are members that can vote?

At the moment, we are inconsequential - and no more than an inconvenient pimple that they simply choose to ignore (or at best give lip service to). Having said that, we are always popular in October / November.

auDA, AusRegistry and the registrars are organised. We aren't. And that's what needs to change (something I am currently working on).

Imho.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

The out of proportion influence of the supply side needs to be addressed.

As does the massive under representation of end users.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I regularly hear that the supply side has more influence on the board, being a supply class director, I can tell you that is not the case. There are only 4 Supply Class Directors, 4 Demand Directors and 3 Independents, so Supply is in the minority.

It is also worth noting for the newbies on this forum, I was there during the bad days fighting to allow the resale of domain names and monetisation, which were previously not permitted. We eventually got there!

There are heaps of comments on this thread, so how about we have some drinks and chat about direct registrations, auDA and other domain related stuff. I'll set up a separate thread.

 

[snoopy]

I regularly hear that the supply side has more influence on the board, being a supply class director, I can tell you that is not the case. There are only 4 Supply Class Directors, 4 Demand Directors and 3 Independents, so Supply is in the minority.

Sorry I misunderstood that, I had thought they (the 3 appointed under AUDA constitution) were AUDA people previously.

 

[Scott.L]

I regularly hear that the supply side has more influence on the board, being a supply class director, I can tell you that is not the case.

Wait, how are you both a supply class member and a demand class member?

 

[neddy]

I regularly hear that the supply side has more influence on the board, being a supply class director, I can tell you that is not the case. There are only 4 Supply Class Directors, 4 Demand Directors and 3 Independents, so Supply is in the minority.

It is also worth noting for the newbies on this forum, I was there during the bad days fighting to allow the resale of domain names and monetisation, which were previously not permitted. We eventually got there!

Erhan, you are to be commended for your past efforts. In fact, not many people on here would know that you tried year after year to get elected as a Demand Class Director, and were just pipped on the post time after time. Very frustrating it was for all of us! Conspiracy theories abounded.

Also, you were on the previous Names Panel - and even were part of a minority report back then! You fought the good fight for all of us.

Then you switched tack, and got elected first time around as a Supply Class Director. (Only about 28 +/- members in Supply, as opposed to about 125 members in Demand). Smart move.

So while you have never answered this question on here, I guess it is fair to assume that you would have to support direct registrations given that you represent Supply? It would probably be electoral suicide if you didn't.

Having said that, I do know how adamant you are about the implementation discussion being handled properly - and that is a big comfort to me and others.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

35 supply side members control 4 directors yet 1.7 million domain owners get stuff all representation!

This outrageous imbalance needs to change.