bitcoin.com.au
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
You are right Peter, under the new 2013 ICANN RAA registrars are required to suspend domains where they cant verify identity ie. by email
petermeadit
Top Contributor
Seems once an email is verified then the .com domain is activated again. So maybe not such unreasonable policy from ICANN. But then there is there security issues to consider.
findtim
Top Contributor
petermeadit
Top Contributor
You would then need to use an active email address to verify with.
DomainShield
Top Contributor
A .au domain registration is a license. The license needs to be held by a legal entity. There are eligibility obligations attached to the license. These eligibility requirements add value to the license (how often do we need EV SSL certs for .com.au domains) and they attract obligations (keep contact details up to date and your ABN/ACN registered). These are two sides of the same coin and arguably they make .au domain licenses more valuable. If anyone treats a .au registration as an asset (a common mistake from TLD domainers) they are misunderstanding the policy. This is not the policies fault it is the person who failed to understand.
In my opinion you should be pointing the finger at registrars who allow people to renew licenses with expired ABN/ACN details. Who allow domains to be transferred between internal accounts without insisting on processing CORs. Who allow registrants to have out of date contact details on their domains. These are the points in the system where the issues should be identified and corrected. If you want to protect registrants from the negative effects of this particular policy you would need to urge auDA to either reward or punish registrars for policing the eligibility check and contact details update at renewal time.
There are all sorts of licenses which can be cancelled due to lack of compliance. A Marriage Celebrant is obligated to keep their contact details (and other details) up to date in order to be compliant. Not sure of the implications of not having them updated but I've spoken to a celebrant under obvious emotional stress as a result of losing a domain name which was being used to host their official contact address. So it would seem to be important to their industry.
Assets are not "given away" under the eligibility complaint policy. They are released to the public in a manner which generally does not suit the person complaining. In the days before we had a publicly published drop list there was a huge advantage to people making complaints. The drop catchers have actually made this abuse of the policy less attractive to people making complaints.
If your ABN has been cancelled the license is no longer held by a legal entity. The idea of having the license linked to a legal entity gives Australian consumers confidence in their namespace. Undermining consumer confidence so domainers used to TLD rules is hardly in the best interest of the majority of .au registrants.
There are sadly a few Registrants who inadvertently get caught in the middle of the policy and whose domains are deleted but their is a safeguard in place and people can contact auDA to help them in a situation like this.
Disclaimer: We still don't even know why the domain was deleted so this is general advise and may not apply to this particular domain.
neddy
Top Contributor
Despite all the excellent info on policy, and the very appropriate advice on using a good local registrar, let us not forget the real issues at stake here.
It doesn't matter if the previous registrant was rich or poor or in-between - it all started with a complaint. Very piss poor imho.
- In the very first instance, someone complained on a technicality - to the registrar or auDA or both. This thread would not exist if that didn't happen.
- The beneficial owner of the domain was not a cybersquatter; therefore the complaint was predicated on greed or envy or malice.
- This valuable asset was then deleted on a technicality.
- Would you like this to happen to you - or even have it attempted (with all the attached stress and uncertainty)?
It doesn't matter if the previous registrant was rich or poor or in-between - it all started with a complaint. Very piss poor imho.
DomainShield
Top Contributor
From what I can see this seems to have started with an incomplete Transfer (Change of Registrant). If the buyer identified in this thread had been required by the Registrar to perform the Transfer (Change of Registrant) instead of being allowed to update the registrant contact details the complaint would not have been possible or at least would have been sent to the seller.
Second to this the sale house published a result to a public forum without checking that the Transfer (Change of Registrant) had been completed.
These two very crucial (and common) mistakes seem to have caused this issue and probably highlighted the underlying policy issues which may have lead to the complaint.
I'd prefer to point out to auDA that they should consider providing registrars with more training in regards to the important differences between .au and .com when it comes to legal change of ownership. Maybe we can also contact Ron to ask him to ensure that .au domains eligibility details have definitely changed before publishing sales from this source again.
I cannot even begin to stress enough the importance of completing Transfer (Change of Registrant) paperwork correctly.
Honan
Top Contributor
Is this article http://qntra.net/2014/11/digital-btc-lose-bitcoin-com-au-by-mistake/ an accurate representation of what happened to Bitcoin.com.au ?
findtim
Top Contributor
there have been MANY threads/posts about buyers and sellers not completing COR properly, i know i have screwed up many both sides of the tracks, but the blame must always rest with the NEW owner IMO.
you do not buy a property/car and not make sure the paperwork is completed.
tim
you do not buy a property/car and not make sure the paperwork is completed.
tim
findtim
Top Contributor
as stated earlier that article is no friend to the situation and comment like these don't help either.
"....my website wasn't yet making money...." what a joke, you just use your name !!!!
tim
I know this is one step further on from "domaining" but in the age of "Negative SEO" is this really surprising? I don't think "greed, envy or malice" comes in to it. Its just competition.
The online world is a free for all and this is just what should be expected as "normal competition".
Obviously depends which niches your involved in, but Bitcoin is finance it's right up there for rogue activity.
Couple that with the fact that the .com.au space is really not that closed off to overseas operators, and you're dealing with people from any country on earth and from any background or cultural perspective.
The issue here is allowing the domain to go into risk - not he fact the risk was exposed.
The online world is a free for all and this is just what should be expected as "normal competition".
Obviously depends which niches your involved in, but Bitcoin is finance it's right up there for rogue activity.
Couple that with the fact that the .com.au space is really not that closed off to overseas operators, and you're dealing with people from any country on earth and from any background or cultural perspective.
The issue here is allowing the domain to go into risk - not he fact the risk was exposed.
findtim
Top Contributor
whilst i dislike the context of your post, the statement
"The issue here is allowing the domain to go into risk - not the fact the risk was exposed." rings true and that is a sad thing.
i think all the posts so far have been about securing a balance with these events happening, through auda rules, domain challengers/complaints and present owner rights before a PD is created.
reality is we do not know where it all started and this lack of transparency is a major concern to the community.
imagine if it was transparent and it could be shown that " tim from dubbo dentist who owned some bitcoins made a complaint" !!! how disgusting would that be
( i am not a dentist in dubbo )
thats literal how stupid it could be, so why can't we know how the PD started and from who? surely this would reduce PD's ?
if you are going to pick a fight then put your name on the chalk board and show yourself IMO, this anonymity sucks.
this thread should have started with " the domain was purchased in april, COR was not done correctly, tim from dubbo complained, auda then just went and PD it and now its been purchased by bla bla " this would have saved a whole lot of posts + we would all know it was tim in dubbo that started it.
tim, not in dubbo
"The issue here is allowing the domain to go into risk - not the fact the risk was exposed." rings true and that is a sad thing.
i think all the posts so far have been about securing a balance with these events happening, through auda rules, domain challengers/complaints and present owner rights before a PD is created.
reality is we do not know where it all started and this lack of transparency is a major concern to the community.
imagine if it was transparent and it could be shown that " tim from dubbo dentist who owned some bitcoins made a complaint" !!! how disgusting would that be
( i am not a dentist in dubbo
)thats literal how stupid it could be, so why can't we know how the PD started and from who? surely this would reduce PD's ?
if you are going to pick a fight then put your name on the chalk board and show yourself IMO, this anonymity sucks.
this thread should have started with " the domain was purchased in april, COR was not done correctly, tim from dubbo complained, auda then just went and PD it and now its been purchased by bla bla " this would have saved a whole lot of posts + we would all know it was tim in dubbo that started it.
tim, not in dubbo
MelbourneDomainer
Member
Anyone here looking at GoDaddy in this situation.. Let me expand on Anthony's post, with my "educated guess":
GoDaddy are new in the .au space, and understand the requirements of auDA for a registrant to have valid ABN details.
Being the size of registrar they are, I am sure they have implemented a large amount of automation to scale the way they have. So it would be reasonable to assume they developed scripts to adhere to auDA policy. One of which could easily identifies all cancelled ABNs each month and sends notices out to owners (maybe every month for three months). If after (x) months the details are not changed, GoDaddy do a Policy Delete to adhere with auDA.
Not really a mistake of GD, they are simply following the rules with systems, rather than customer service / human common-sense. But it would be unreasonable to expect a human element from GD, given their size and having >$3 per 2 years to service an AU domain.
Lesson: Be careful choosing a registrar.
GoDaddy are new in the .au space, and understand the requirements of auDA for a registrant to have valid ABN details.
Being the size of registrar they are, I am sure they have implemented a large amount of automation to scale the way they have. So it would be reasonable to assume they developed scripts to adhere to auDA policy. One of which could easily identifies all cancelled ABNs each month and sends notices out to owners (maybe every month for three months). If after (x) months the details are not changed, GoDaddy do a Policy Delete to adhere with auDA.
Not really a mistake of GD, they are simply following the rules with systems, rather than customer service / human common-sense. But it would be unreasonable to expect a human element from GD, given their size and having >$3 per 2 years to service an AU domain.
Lesson: Be careful choosing a registrar.
neddy
Top Contributor
You are right Anthony - lots of things could have / should have been done. The point I'm trying to get across is that despite this, nothing would have happened had a complaint not been made.
This is because auDA is primarily complaints driven - they don't generally audit for expired ABN's / deregisterd companies. If they did, I know of quite a few domain owners who would be pinged!
Just as an aside, if you are a listed company and contravene ASX rules, they generally give you a deadline to fix the problem - and maybe fine you as well. And if you don't comply, then you get delisted. They don't strip the company of its assets. Same with ASIC regulations.
Anyway, whilst I was looking for some info, I came across this old DNT thread about auDA complaints:
https://www.dntrade.com.au/domain-news/3939-auda-complaints-tallied-in-annual-report.html
Brett and Erhan's comments are worth quoting:
DomainShield
Top Contributor
My only argument here relates very specifically to deletions which occur because of cancelled or deregistered eligibility details.
Further to this I think it is incorrect for Registrars to allow .au domains to be pushed from one account to another within their systems without first warning the registrant that unlike .com a Transfer (Change of Registrant) is required under auDA policy to affect the legal change of ownership from one party to another.
I do however generally agree with You, BrettF and CooperMills that something more can be done to address complains which are in effect reverse hijacking attempts and are caused by policy which is hard for registrars to police in an automated way.
Lets say for arguments sake that no complaint was made and the buyer in this instance builds up an interface for his Bitcoin ATMs on the website and two years down the line he wants to sell this company with the website. The new buyer's lawyer does a little bit of due diligence, runs the whois and points out that the domain is not licensed to the company and cannot be included as part of the sale. This problem keeps getting compounded the further up the chain a domain goes and the risk keeps on growing that the original paperwork relating to the sales cannot be found. More and more expensive lawyers need to be involved the longer this issue remains unaddressed.
Further to this I think it is incorrect for Registrars to allow .au domains to be pushed from one account to another within their systems without first warning the registrant that unlike .com a Transfer (Change of Registrant) is required under auDA policy to affect the legal change of ownership from one party to another.
I do however generally agree with You, BrettF and CooperMills that something more can be done to address complains which are in effect reverse hijacking attempts and are caused by policy which is hard for registrars to police in an automated way.
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
Thanks Neddy, my personal view remains, that is, complaints should be disclosed to the domain owner and the registrar. I see it like the police charging someone, and not giving them a brief of evidence containing their accusers statements.
This provides a good opportunity to encourage everyone here to nominate for the auDA names policy panel, the information here available here. It closes on 28 November 2014. This is by far the most powerful panel that reviews the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Rules.
snoopy
Top Contributor
That is legalese. There isn't much point referencing AUDA policy and how they classify domains as licences because their bad policy is cause of this problem.
The fact of the matter is people are paying a lot of money for domains. They own it and it shouldn't be taken away on the basis of out of date information.
AUDA would likely argue, "well legally", "according to our policy". But their policy is out of touch with the marketplace.
When there is a problem, the person responsible is the person at the top. It is AUDA rules that are the cause of names getting deleted like this.
When a marriage celebrant doesn't update their contact details is their business given away to someone else? The marriage license it not worth a lot of money can can be reapplied for, the domain can be very valuable and is given away to someone else. It is a wealth transfer.
How is "released to the public" different to "giving away"?
The biggest person advantaged by this is dropcatchers, the second biggest is people who aren't able to buy the domain from the current owner.
I don't think it is usually domainers losing domains in this way, it is endusers who are not familiar with how things work. e.g. they don't know the correct process to do a transfer and the name gets deleted because it has the old owners ABN on it.
DomainShield
Top Contributor
The policy is created in consultation with members of the public and is shaped by raising points while attending panels and gaining popular support. If the policies are out of touch then raise this point at the next names panel and IF you get public support it will change.
Indeed and there are policy allowances for cases where out of date information needs to updated. Registrars simply need to get the up to date information and process the update.
So far either public apathy or a lack of support for the idea of reclassifying .au domains as assets rather than licenses over the last decade seems to indicate that a majority support the current license system and we might be out of touch with majority opinion. Lets raise the idea of reclassification at the next names panel because it would really suit my business objectives if we could achieve this.
I agree on the person (or people) at the top being responsible for policy. Since the policy is shaped by the public and in consultation with the industry does this actually make us responsible for this outcome? I think so. I see auDA as the custodians of our collective wishes relating to .au domain names not some dictator making rules to spite others. Rules don't cause deletions it is the non-adherance coupled with a complaint which leads to the deletion.
Oops darling our marriage is no longer legal because our marriage celebrant was not legally allowed to marry us when he/she did. Oh and you no longer have a claim to a divorce so I get to keep the house. The good news is that Snoopy does not think that a marriage license is worth a lot of money, so you can apply to him for your child support claims because he has some domains which are apparently really valuable.
I'd personally give up all the wealth in the world for my wife and kids. I know I am twisting your words here and the proceeding paragraph was meant to be amusing. I don't really know enough about marriage celebrants to comment seriously on this.
When a complainant is successful in auDRP terms the license is taken from the current registrant and given to the complainant. In an Eligibility Complaint (like the one hypothetically being discussed here) the domain purge date and time is published on the ausregistry drop list. At the next purge time the domain is then available to register on a first come first serve basis.
I am not sure I follow the logic about who is the second biggest winner, but yes there is no denying that drop catchers are advantaged by domains expiring and domains being deleted. I believe this is their actual business model.
Yes I agree it is endusers not familiar with how things work who get burnt but I have also seen domainers hurt.
How about requiring the suppliers of the service to be obliged to familiarize the end users with the correct process?
Why do we resort to bashing auDA who have zero contact with the registrant until the domain is deleted and we ignore the registrar who is in direct contact with the registrant sometimes for years prior to the complaint being lodged?
I think there is probably a micro business model here for someone to offer a service to monitor the ABN/ACN/Trademarks as well as the Registant contact details for users and alert them via snail mail if anything changes. "Pre-emptive Information Snail-mail Service" and we see if we can get a majority of .au registrars to take the PISS and charge registrants extra for this :-D
