Grrrrrrrrrr!

[AnthonyP]

Anthony, in simple terms, as General Manager of Netfleet, are you saying that you agree with the ability for people to make anonymous complaints about domain owners and their right to hold domains (for whatever reason)?

As the General Manager of Netfleet, my list of changes at auDA starts with.
1) Try to remove the rule relating to "sole intent to resell", getting rid of the 6 month rule was a great step but it was not a home run. Right now it is fine to sell a domain but it is difficult to confidently market your domain if this marketing can be used as proof of "sole intent to resell".

2) Try to remove the ABN/ACN eligibility requirements for .au domains before .sydney and .melbourne allow a relative free for all and undermine .au domains.

If we can achieve 1 and 2 then it makes this discussion purely academic and it does not matter that I personally believe that the complainant in a case relating to the eligibility to own a domain is entitled to not have to fear recrimination from bullies.

If anyone has any ideas or wants to use their membership at auDA to lobby for 1) and/or 2) then feel free to derail this argument to discuss how to do this and save me.

<insert emoticon to denote meek smile so that customers don't hate me>

I asked Erhan last week about whether auDA was subject to FOI, but apparently they are not because they are technically a Corporation. It would be great to put in FOI requests
to see who made a complaint.

Are corporations bound by any sort of rules relating to storing private information, where one can request information relating to ones own ABN or contact details? This will not help with complaints but might help with an ABN list.

 

[neddy]

it does not matter that I personally believe that the complainant in a case relating to the eligibility to own a domain is entitled to not have to fear recrimination from bullies.

But it's ok for domainers to be bullied by anonymous complainants?

 

[AnthonyP]

But it's ok for domainers to be bullied by anonymous complainants?

I always try to give the following advise when someone I know gets a complaint.

1) Take a deep breath.
2) Pretend it is not personal.
3) Do 1 again.

We are in the business so we have to expect to be in the firing line. Some of the rules keep others out of the game and some rules add to the value of the assets we trade.

Complaints are lodged, it is brought to auDA's attention, and then auDA take the decision to pursue or not once the decision is made, auDA are not representing the complainant they are representing auDA. When you get slapped by auDA here it is irrelevant of who complained it is between you and auDA.
I can understand why auDA might be keen to pass the buck, but in reality they are the enforcer of the rules.

I took a quick look at the number of complaints lodged for the Period 2011-12 as presented by auDA to us at the most recent Registrar conference.

Eligibility details are incorrect (1)
Misspelling (not on list) (35)
Misspelling (on list) (177)
Monetisation 4.3a (21)
Monetisation 4.3b (14)
Registrars (1)
Sale of domain name (5)
Warranty Check (144)

So in 1 year there where a total of 5 complaints about selling a domain name! Considering we have 50 000 listed for sale and there a 2.5 million domain registered you have to be pretty unlucky to get called up on this.

Even the 144 Warranty Checks is a tiny number considering how many domains are potentially sitting with out of date eligibility details.

And for the record they knocked back 724 complaints in the same period.

 

[AnthonyP]

I suddenly realised it was 1pm and drop time so I switched tabs and started laughing when I noticed ProtectAnt.com.au was on the list! I hope someone is going to set up a nice site on there to lobby for my protection :-D

 

[neddy]

Anthony, you can quote all sorts of past figures and stats until the cows come home. I'm reporting on some more recent complaints that have happened.

The original premise of this thread asked:

1. If it was fair that complainants could be anonymous?
   
   
2. How much complaints would decrease by if it was compulsory that complainants' names were published?

You've now introduced the word "bullying" into the argument - and are sort of implying that complainants could be bullied or harassed if their names and complaints were published. Yet it seems ok to you if domainers are attacked anonymously.

I (and many others who I have discussed this with) just want a level playing field and total transparency.

Many of us don't have salaries to fall back on - this is our livelihood we are talking about. Taking a deep breath and pretending it isn't personal doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Anyway, this is my last post on this subject - too much time has already been spent. We both know where we stand on the subject.

Cheers, Ned

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I see ProtestAnt.com.au is dropping tomorrow.

It might get a few bidders now.

 

[goldnugget]

Fortunately I havent had to deal with any of these sorts of issues (knock on wood), but in my mind, as registrants of domains we have our details available...so if someone has an issue with a registrant and they choose not to contact them but instead just lodge a complaint then that puts the registrant on the back foot immediately and 'blindsided'.

If there is a complaint, I think the first port of call should be for the complainant to contact the registrant and if there is no resolution, then the governing body should get involved. At least when that happens, both parties have some sort of documented evidence of both parties intents and responses in relation to the complaint.

 

[findtim]

Fortunately I havent had to deal with any of these sorts of issues (knock on wood), but in my mind, as registrants of domains we have our details available...so if someone has an issue with a registrant and they choose not to contact them but instead just lodge a complaint then that puts the registrant on the back foot immediately and 'blindsided'.

If there is a complaint, I think the first port of call should be for the complainant to contact the registrant and if there is no resolution, then the governing body should get involved. At least when that happens, both parties have some sort of documented evidence of both parties intents and responses in relation to the complaint.

ned and anthony are talking "above my head" but i agree with goldnugget, the first port of call should be as he said. the auda should actually ask that first " have you contacted them?

i've had 3 in the last year and have all been solved very easily because they contacted me first, 1 contacted anthony and he suggested to the person to contact me and it was win win.

the fact there were 724 compliants knocked back is great and shows auda aren't fools, but is that 724 that just went straight to the auda? this is where the bullying comes in

tim

 

[snoopy]

We all know that auDA only acts against people on the basis of complaints received (generally). It seems to me to fly in the face of natural justice that they don't have to be named.

Natural justice??

Normally this is how a complainants system works. When you ring the police to complain about your neighbour starting a bonfire in their backyard at 2am they don't go around to the neighbour and say

"John Smith of 18 Your St made a complaint about you".

Likewise on a domain forum when someone sends a PM to a mod complaining about someone the mod doesn't pm the person and say "Member XXXXX just complained about you". Typically an informant is anonymous.

I wonder how much complaints would decrease by if it was compulsory that complainants' names were published?

The fact is if AUDA told registrants who was complaining they'd see a big decrease in both legitimate and non legitimate complaints. Having said that I'd guess most of the people with non legitimate complainants probably think what they are saying is legitimate.

 

[DavidL]

No it's different. Most complaints to auda are motivated by people wanting someone else domain.

In your analogy it's like complaining to the police about your neighbour's car not being registered hoping it will be seized and subsequently made available, free of charge to the
first person to put their hand up and thinking that you will be the only one who knows it's going to be available.

 

[findtim]

"hi, is this the berwick police station? "

yes

"i'm cold and my neighbour has a bonfire, so can you come and get it and bring it in my backyard."

tim

 

[snoopy]

No it's different. Most complaints to auda are motivated by people wanting someone else domain.

In your analogy it's like complaining to the police about your neighbour's car not being registered hoping it will be seized and subsequently made available, free of charge to the
first person to put their hand up and thinking that you will be the only one who knows it's going to be available.

Here is another comparison,

Someone looks up a .com domain name and finds the whois is invalid. Person then complains to Icann.

Icann then emails the registrar who in turn contacts domain owner with "John Smith of 123 Yes St has made a compliant about your registration details being invalid".

Again it is going to be handled anonymously with a email from the registrar.

It doesn't matter if the complaint is legitimate or not, nor does it matter what their motivation might be, complaints are typically handled without the informants identity being disclosed.

If you go back to the start of the thread though and read between the lines it is fairly apparent there was some issues with the registration,

My friend will win the argument ultimately, but he has to go through all the hoops now.

ie he hopes eventually to win whatever argument is now present, that does not sounds like a false complaint.

Personally I've had one of these complaints and the whois information was incorrect, it needed to be changed and it doesn't matter why the person complained (I just assumed it was another domainer).

 

[DavidL]

The problem is auDA has set up rules and regulations with the aim to create and maintain a strong namespace not to allow people a shortcut to try and snaffle someone else's domain for their own personal gain.

Not affording the complainant anonymity would drastically cut down on these complaints (and auda's workload).

It's not as if you can make an anonymous auDRP or initiate anonymous litigation through the courts.

Snoopy, Anthony, with respect, if you'd have been on the receiving end of something like this you might think differently.

 

[snoopy]

Not affording the complainant anonymity would drastically cut down on these complaints (and auda's workload).

Not affording anonymity is really only good for domainers, because legitimate and non legitimate complaints would both fall. It doesn't have any real benefit to anyone else and would work against Auda's aims of a well regulated extension in my view.

Personally in a vote I'd vote to make complainants not be anonymous, but I'd also vote to have no complainants system at all or any other measure that benefitted me. That's because I'm a domineer, but that viewpoint isn't balanced or realistic.

It's not as if you can make an anonymous auDRP or initiate anonymous litigation through the courts.

That is because someone is actually asking for something of someone else's - a domain, money based on an interaction between the two parties. Anonymous litigation would not work because there is nothing to respond to.

If someone says I owe them $1000 and starts legal proceedings I can't defend that without knowing who they are. But if I have breached a policy or not reported something it doesn't matter who the informant is.

Snoopy, Anthony, with respect, if you'd have been on the receiving end of something like this you might think differently.

As stated in my last post I have been.