Draft recommendations from the 2015 Names Policy Panel

[Andrew]

Further to my two comments yesterday, there should be no concern whatsoever with the proposed .au, because it quite simply will not go ahead –without auDA attracting immoderate legal risk and/or cannibalizing one of its fundamentals: that there is ‘no hierarchy of rights’ amongst existing 2LD right-holders.

• If the UK model is adopted, whereby .com.au holders are attributed first right to .au, then .au would sit idle and be registered defensively, and the namespace would fail as there would be no reason to change registered business names, trademarks and SEO strategies.
  
• If the NZ model is adopted, whereby .com.au and .net.au (and .org.au, .gov.au and asn.au) holders register their intentions to claim the .au and then mediate between themselves where there are competing claims, then .au would still sit idle and be registered defensively, and the namespace would fail as there would be no reason to change registered entity names, trademarks and SEO strategies.
  
• As stated in my previous comment, there is no way that auDA would auction the name between .com.au and .net.au (and .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au) registrants, as this would attract too much legal risk (damages could be better quantified, because a premium is paid for the .au). It would also be grossly unethical to make charities compete with commercial interests for .au at auction. Yet to not allow .org.au to compete at auction, or to make any particular concession to .org.au holders, would be to admit that there is a hierarchy of rights amongst the 2LDs.
  
• There is also no chance that existing .com.au registrants would be denied the opportunity to secure the corresponding .au (a scenario where .au is made available to the public on a first come, first serve basis) as this too would attract too much legal risk and would constitute a diminution of existing rights. (While .net.au, .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au holders accept and are used to losing type-in-traffic to .com.au, .com.au holders are not used to losing traffic to any other local (.au) extension. Any loss of .com.au traffic due to .au would expose auDA to legal action and the damages in many instances would be readily quantifiable.
  
• A namespace comprised largely of defensive registrations would have no authority in the real world, hence no authority on Google, hence no value to registrants, hence no value to investors. Therefore, there should be no reason for panic among investors. If anything, .au would push up the value of .com.au significantly. This phenomenon has been witnessed three times over, with .com, .co.uk and to a lesser extent .co.nz. Moreover, the proposed equal footing between .com.au and .net.au (and .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au) registrants would also push up the value of .net.au and … wait for it … .id.au(!) names. That’s right kids, if equal footing is given to .id.au holders as is proposed (read the panel document carefully, it says “all 2LDs should be regarded as equal”), then in the coming days, weeks and months we can expect a land-rush on .id.au registrations. After all, any one of us could go and grab www.target.id.au right now in expectation that www.target.au would go to mediation between the .com.au, .net.au and .id.au registrants or else will sit idle. (‘Personal hobby or interest’ is a basis for .id.au registration. Anyone here like archery?). This, ladies and gentleman, is the New Zealand model, proposed for Australia. What will result? At the end of the day, .au names would sit undelegated and/or idle and unused. So there is absolutely no chance that .au would gain any traction in Australia. It would be nothing more than a basket case for Facebook mums, eBay wannabes, ‘creative’ types and non-commercial interests.

PS. Don’t bother buying up .net.au names defensively unless you can also secure the .id.au and be confident that you wouldn’t end up vying with .org.au, .gov.au and/or .asn.au holders for the .au.

I will not be making any submissions to the Names Policy Panel, but I’m sure somebody else will identify these issues in their submission. I’m also confident that the Panel isn’t as juvenile and supply-side skewed as it appears to be at present.

PS. Does anyone here like to restore and sell old cars as a hobby? www.carsales.id.au is going begging.

Finally, the issues raised above could not simply be overcome by denying .id.au holders equal right to secure the proposed .au, as to do so would be to accept that there is a hierarchy of rights amongst 2LDs. If there is a hierarchy of rights amongst 2LDs, and if .id.au were to be disenfranchised (alienating non-ABN individuals –the primary user group that .au is suggested for), then .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au would likewise need to be relegated behind .com.au and .net.au. The chief question then would be, why should .com.au holders not be attributed first right to .au, since they comprise 85% of all registrations?

Can’t wait to see charity and government departmental jaws drop when Melbourne IT hits them for another $149.99 per name biennially (assuming current .com.au pricing would be applied to .au).

The broadening of .id.au eligibility to groups and collectives would seem to be the simplest way to accommodate the supposed clamoring need for indigenous online identity.

 

[eBranding.com.au]

This process is of significant importance to many of us, given the impact that the ultimate outcomes could have on our businesses, brands and indeed livelihoods. For me personally, there could be quite significant financial implications, coupled with some serious IP protection issues.

It's to be expected then that the debate on these .au policy considerations will be passionate and at times emotions will be high. It's worth keeping in mind though, that the process is still very much under way, and your views can still make a difference. Nothing is set in stone and the submissions will play a pivotal role in the final recommendations.

We are also very fortunate that people like Ned, Erhan, Peter and others, are giving their time to be part of the Names Policy Panel. As with any panel/committee process, there are parameters on the scope of their considerations and recommendations, and of course as with any large group there will be a wide range of views put forward.

Ned's latest post on domainer.com.au prompted this post. I think the points raised are important, so I'm adding this as 'food for thought' in the discussions here.

 

[elbranch]

its not really a case of complaining, the situation is often this:
a .com.au got registered, someone else came late to the game and registered the .net.au,

I am not exactly sure what your point is with this part of of your post (I understand the rest) but if someone is unable to purchase the premium domain extension .com.au ("came late to the game") and therefore purchases the secondary .net.au then what they are doing is providing incontrovertible evidence that they are willing to use the secondary domain name extension. Drops or no drops of the .com.au, all .net.au have provided this proof of their willingness to use the secondary domain name extension. Why should there be a problem with the new premium domain extension being allocated to the current premium domain extension owner and the status quo being maintained?

 

[elbranch]

http://theconversation.com/a-change-in-australias-web-rules-would-open-up-the-au-space-46203
"But if the panel recommendations are accepted, there will be a lot more choice." ???????????
Disclosure statement
xxxx xxxxx Chairs the current 2015 Names Panel on behalf of auDA. He is a member of auDA.

 

[robert]

I don't want to come across as a troublemaker or a voice against change. I just don't like to sit back and let things happen without questioning the reasoning behind things. I always dig down into the facts, just like a lot of other respected Domainers on this forum. I can't help myself.
At this point I would like to remember some of the positive things that have happened over the last ten years in the Australian domain name industry (which I am thankful for, as like many other new Domainers, I was not around while all this was happening).

1. Generic, Geo and any dictionary-word domain name could be registered in the Australian domain name space. Thank goodness.
2. Domain Monetisation was brought in, which is great for Australian entrepreneurs and website developers, giving them time to develop domain names by monetising them in the meantime. This makes sense, as real estate agents are allowed to buy property and land for development, and so should everyone be able to buy digital Australian real estate on the internet and develop it, in time, also. The people involved in getting this through need to be congratulated. And Domain Monetisation rules should be applied to the .au TLD if it manages to become a reality.
3. The close and substantial connection rule was brought it, which helps to protect Australian domain name credibility even further. This of course made our names even more credible and trustworthy in relation to Australian businesses owning Australian domain names.
​

 

[elbranch]

I don't want to come across as a troublemaker or a voice against change. I just don't like to sit back and let things happen without questioning the reasoning behind things. I always dig down into the facts, just like a lot of other respected Domainers on this forum. I can't help myself.
At this point I would like to remember some of the positive things that have happened over the last ten years in the Australian domain name industry (which I am thankful for, as like many other new Domainers, I was not around while all this was happening).

1. Generic, Geo and any dictionary-word domain name could be registered in the Australian domain name space. Thank goodness.
2. Domain Monetisation was brought in, which is great for Australian entrepreneurs and website developers, giving them time to develop domain names by monetising them in the meantime. This makes sense, as real estate agents are allowed to buy property and land for development, and so should everyone be able to buy digital Australian real estate on the internet and develop it, in time, also. The people involved in getting this through need to be congratulated. And Domain Monetisation rules should be applied to the .au TLD if it manages to become a reality.
3. The close and substantial connection rule was brought it, which helps to protect Australian domain name credibility even further. This of course made our names even more credible and trustworthy in relation to Australian businesses owning Australian domain names.
​

You need to read up on Stockholm Syndrome.

"I know the bank robbers murdered a few guards when they took us hostage, but since then they have been quite nice, bringing in pizza and letting us call our loved ones to tell them we are okay. Maybe they aren't so bad after all."

 

[robert]

Thank goodness you're there to open my eyes for me, elbranch. I don't know what I would do.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Erhan, I find it disconcerting that the panel has determined a position regarding hierarchy of rights when that issue is at the crux of this and should be itself be subject to serious discussion.

I also find it disconcerting that the panels position is at odds to, several panel members, personal opinions.

How can a panel have a stated position when it differs to that of several members?

The panel operates on a consensus basis (basically majority NOT unanimous). I am glad we are all having a good debate and discussion about this. Now put all of your ideas together and get a submission in, even an email is fine.

 

[Horshack]

[*]As stated in my previous comment, there is no way that auDA would auction the name between .com.au and .net.au (and .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au) registrants, as this would attract too much legal risk (damages could be better quantified, because a premium is paid for the .au). It would also be grossly unethical to make charities compete with commercial interests for .au at auction. Yet to not allow .org.au to compete at auction, or to make any particular concession to .org.au holders, would be to admit that there is a hierarchy of rights amongst the 2LDs.

[*]There is also no chance that existing .com.au registrants would be denied the opportunity to secure the corresponding .au (a scenario where .au is made available to the public on a first come, first serve basis) as this too would attract too much legal risk and would constitute a diminution of existing rights. (While .net.au, .org.au, .gov.au and .asn.au holders accept and are used to losing type-in-traffic to .com.au, .com.au holders are not used to losing traffic to any other local (.au) extension. Any loss of .com.au traffic due to .au would expose auDA to legal action and the damages in many instances would be readily quantifiable.

[/LIST]
I think you've forgotten the fact that the registrants of the domain names don't own the domains but only hold a licence to use the domain name. So the first argument here is bit like a tenant who is renting a house and thinking they own the house and have the rights to tell the owner what they can do with it. The second argument is that the owner has offered to rent you 2 houses (.com.au/.net.au) on the same terms but you decided to rent the .com.au house and someone else rents the .net.au house. One day the owner says to his tenants that he is going to build a new house and the tenants of his houses have first option to rent that house. Should one tenant have an automatic option to rent the new house? There's your hierarchy of rights right there!

 

[elbranch]

[/LIST]
I think you've forgotten the fact that the registrants of the domain names don't own the domains but only hold a licence to use the domain name. So the first argument here is bit like a tenant who is renting a house and thinking they own the house and have the rights to tell the owner what they can do with it. The second argument is that the owner has offered to rent you 2 houses (.com.au/.net.au) on the same terms but you decided to rent the .com.au house and someone else rents the .net.au house. One day the owner says to his tenants that he is going to build a new house and the tenants of his houses have first option to rent that house. Should one tenant have an automatic option to rent the new house? There's your hierarchy of rights right there!

They are not rented on the same terms for one example auDA auctioned off generic .com.au domain names which reached prices into the tens of thousands of dollars while generic .net.au domain names were freely available for hand registration.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

It's not like a house rental but more like renting a block of land. Big difference.
.com.au are main street blocks and .net.au's are back of Bourke, again a big difference.
And .au's are splitting the .com.au block into two with the .au at front with street exposure.

 

[Horshack]

Oh yes I forgot. Should the tenants in the first 2 be able to stop the owner building that new .au house?

 

[elbranch]

(I posted this quote without comment a few posts back because the restrictive five minute edit limit got me before I had finished)

http://theconversation.com/a-change-in-australias-web-rules-would-open-up-the-au-space-46203
"But if the panel recommendations are accepted, there will be a lot more choice." ???????????
Disclosure statement
xxxx xxxxx Chairs the current 2015 Names Panel on behalf of auDA. He is a member of auDA.

I understand from reading this complete thread that the owners of the three million domain name have not been contacted about this proposed change.

However, from the above quote I learn that a senior auDA representative has been parading himself on a website targeting the professional elite who as a demographic would have very little direct involvement with domain names and informing them about the proposed change.

This is the disgraceful level auDA operates at. No concern at all for the people who will suffer the impact of the proposed change, not even telling them until after a decision is made, but able to find the time to present a woefully slanted account of the proposed change to an audience from the academic and political sector of society in an effort to solicit support for the proposed change at this level.

 

[elbranch]

Don't clog up the thread with a faulty analogy about houses (says me who has already responded to it) start another thread call it "Hindsight Vision and Faulty Analogies"

 

[elbranch]

Premium .com.au domain names a valuable asset for Australian businesses

https://www.ausregistry.com.au/prem...es-a-valuable-asset-for-australian-businesses

Didn't ausregistry get the memo that .com.au names are the same as .net.au domain names?

What happened to the "premium" .net.au domain names being a valuable asset for Australian businesses?

 

[Horshack]

Don't clog up the thread with a faulty analogy about houses (says me who has already responded to it) start another thread call it "Hindsight Vision and Faulty Analogies"

It's an absolutely perfect analogy. When you register a .au domain name you are a tenant and not an owner.

 

[DomainNames]

Maybe it will be promoted and marketed now via similar posts on websites and press releases as "Premium-Premium-Au-domain-names-a-valuable-source-of-income-for-Auda-Ausregistry-MelbourneIT-Registrars-IP/Trademark-Lawyers

 

[DomainNames]

Premium .com.au domain names a valuable asset for Australian businesses

https://www.ausregistry.com.au/prem...es-a-valuable-asset-for-australian-businesses

Didn't ausregistry get the memo that .com.au names are the same as .net.au domain names?

What happened to the "premium" .net.au domain names being a valuable asset for Australian businesses?

Maybe it will be promoted and marketed now via similar posts on websites and press releases as "Premium-Premium-.Au-domain-names-a-valuable-source-of-income-for-Auda-Ausregistry-MelbourneIT-Registrars-IP/Trademark-Lawyers-Dispute-Panelists

 

[snoopy]

What happened to the "premium" .net.au domain names being a valuable asset for Australian businesses?

If that was the heading people wouldn't take it seriously because the general public knows .net.au domains are terrible.

 

[elbranch]

Thank goodness you're there to open my eyes for me, elbranch. I don't know what I would do.

No offence meant sometimes I shoot off too quickly auDA established what I think was an overly restrictive framework so I don't think they should be applauded for loosening some of those restrictions, especially when in some cases this raised a considerable amount of money for auDA which would not have been available if they had not had the restrictive framework in the first place.