The Elephant In The Room

[snoopy]

With the .com market…

Hang on…

I just cross-referenced a .com name to prove the Creation Date isn’t changed with .com – but strangely my Creation Dates for all my .com domain names that have been moved to TPP have ALSO BEEN RESET to recent Creation Dates?!?!

Is this a fundamental design flaw at NetRegistry and Melbourne IT?!?!?! Are they overwriting Creation Date HISTORY of all domain names?!?!?!? Not only .com.au but also .com?!?!? For how long has this been happening?????

For example, look up my name MelbourneAccommodation.com

The creation date is 2015 – but if you look at Wayback Machine, it was created in 2003..

I'm sure other registrars around the world don't override the Creation Date?! Can someone else please confirm this?

What the hell is going on here?!

You need to look at the "registry" creation date, the "registrar" is often wrong and may just be the date of transfer in some cases.

However, melbourneaccomodation.com has a creation date for both of 2015, so it would have been an expired name which was then dropped and was registered again.

 

[snoopy]

Did this creation date reset issue exist from day one or was it a consequence of Whois data being used by unsolicited renewal notices to registrants back in the day, subsequently triggered a technical switch in creation dates? Very interesting.

I don't really follow about the "creation reset issue". I don't think any creation date has been reset. If a name is registered in 2000 and is deleted in 2015 and then someone registers it again then the correct creation dat is 2015 in my view. This is how all tlds works.

 

[Scott.L]

If you read my Domainer article, the main point I was trying to get across was this:

"With this level of uncertainity about "create dates", would you spend thousands on an expired domain name on the drops?"

The obvious answer is NO! and its a scary question for anyone out there seeking to invest in this market now. Expiry auctions are like a proxy transfer station, and if considered to reset the creation date then that would really impact the new registrant who won the name in the race to 'qualify' for a right to the new .au

 

[Lemon]

With all these queries on the whois ausregistry may have to put the price of domains up to cover the cost of the additional load.

 

[snoopy]

The obvious answer is NO! and its a scary question for anyone out there seeking to invest in this market now. Expiry auctions are like a proxy transfer station, and if considered to reset the creation date then that would really impact the new registrant who won the name in the race to 'qualify' for a right to the new .au

In my view people just need to be bidding less or not investing, .com.au is a very uncertain market right now. Even if introduced I think .au will be a massive flop but the uncertainty will continue to damage the .com.au market much like .uk damaged .co.uk.

 

[Scott.L]

I don't really follow about the "creation reset issue". I don't think any creation date has been reset. If a name is registered in 2000 and is deleted in 2015 and then someone registers it again then the correct creation dat is 2015 in my view. This is how all tlds works.

Implementing this rule would be difficult because ‘no licensee transfer of title’ exists; I would imagine, it’s unfair to award an inferior registrant within the hierarchical structure the .au, especially if the new .com.au registrant (won name on drop) becomes inferior to a lower hierarchical registrants status just because it’s based on a non-identifiable creation date or a creation date reset at the time of transfer.

 

[snoopy]

With all these queries on the whois ausregistry may have to put the price of domains up to cover the cost of the additional load.

Ausregistry are price gouging and it’s a natural monopoly and they’re walking out with wads of cash in their pockets.

 

[Lemon]

Implementing this rule would be difficult because ‘no licensee transfer of title’ exists; I would imagine, it’s unfair to award an inferior registrant within the hierarchical structure the .au, especially if the new .com.au registrant (won name on drop) becomes inferior to a lower hierarchical registrants status just because it’s based on a non-identifiable creation date or a creation date reset at the time of transfer.

I think I need a triple espresso to get my head around that.

 

[Scott.L]

I think I need a triple espresso to get my head around that.

LOL - Basically, IMHO it would be seen to be unfair to give a right to a lower tier registrant just because a technical term is exploited to do so.

and before anyone argues ‘no hierarchy of rights’ that was only relevant before a hierarchy was established.

 

[neddy]

I think I need a triple espresso to get my head around that.

In your case, I think three pints would be better.

 

[Lemon]

In your case, I think three pints would be better.

The first priority as a new Director must be to increase the budget for the Members Meet-ups and we all get to take Shane's car for a spin.

 

[DomainNames]

With all these queries on the whois ausregistry may have to put the price of domains up to cover the cost of the additional load.

That's funny.. I have no doubts of the spin Ausregistry and auDA will come up with to try and justify things...
Still no reply from them about their 2009 published statements about the wholesale price decrease as part of the contract renewal terms and conditions..More media coming soon . Political links and B.S. excuses or "spin" wont save this issue from getting some action.

 

[DomainNames]

I see a real issue with this. One Director said "it's not really a big issue only about 30,000 domain names could have a potential problem."

Example if paid $90,000 for Toys.com.au at the drop auction would you think it was a big issue the toys.net.au registrant "owner" got the .au first rights?

auDA has stuffed this up big time... but onwards they proceed for the $$$ revenue They where sold some BS about the how to do it by just following the .uk and .nz model. Sorry that will not work now we all have the facts about those failed extensions with less than 10% take up rate.

I will be submitting for the panel and I will go head to head with anyone about the facts. Having .nz and .uk myself I will probably have more knowledge than most including any academics without real domain name demand or supply experience.

I see straight through this push for another competing .au extension and soon via the media getting into investigation mode I hope everyone does.

auDA and Directors have a duty not just to auDA to make money but their duty is also to all existing .au consumers and the Corporations Act.

Even past relationships between auDA and the ACCC will not stop real investigative work, more "forced" transparency and accountability. The facts will come out...

I kept very good records from my meeting with Deloitte so I look forward to cross checking it against their report, what information they where provided and could have studied and what they told me.

 

[Andrew Wright]

You need to look at the "registry" creation date, the "registrar" is often wrong and may just be the date of transfer in some cases.

However, melbourneaccomodation.com has a creation date for both of 2015, so it would have been an expired name which was then dropped and was registered again.

It's a new registration, as it expired...
"MELBOURNEACCOMMODATION.COM last sold for $1,055 on 2015-08-08 at DropCatch"
https://namebio.com/melbourneaccommodation.com

 

[snoopy]

I see a real issue with this. One Director said "it's not really a big issue only about 30,000 domain names could have a potential problem."

The problem is they'll be 30,000 of the best names, where even the .net.au has been registered for ages and the .com.au's sold for significant amounts. It won't be the 30,000 names that nobody cares about.

I will be submitting for the panel and I will go head to head with anyone about the facts. Having .nz and .uk myself I will probably have more knowledge than most including any academics without real domain name demand or supply experience.

I see straight through this push for another competing .au extension and soon via the media getting into investigation mode I hope everyone does.

auDA and Directors have a duty not just to auDA to make money but their duty is also to all existing .au consumers and the Corporations Act.

Even past relationships between auDA and the ACCC will not stop real investigative work, more "forced" transparency and accountability. The facts will come out...

I fully support your work Sean (even if your posts can be rather longer). I believe your strategy is unique and is clearly bearing fruit as we saw yesterday.

 

[Lemon]

The problem is they'll be 30,000 of the best names, where even the .net.au has been registered for ages and the .com.au's sold for significant amounts. It won't be the 30,000 names that nobody cares about.

I agree.
If every one of those 30,000 put $22 towards a "Legal Fund" that is $660,000

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Quick name a domain industry legal firm that could benefit from that.

 

[neddy]

Quick name a domain industry legal firm that could benefit from that.

As one of my American friends says, that is the GLOTD.

 

[snoopy]

Ned has an interesting follow up article on this today,

http://www.domainer.com.au/another-elephant/

I particularly agree with the comments that AUDA needs remedy the real issues that are preventing people from using a .com.au (instead of a .com) and that is mainly the ABN requirement. Removing impediments is the obvious way to "grow the market" is my view, rather than another extension.

Also agree that .au is potentially seeing 0% real growth right now which is being hidden by the high volumes of UBU's being registered.

 

[robert]

My view is that removing the ABN requirement is a backward move.
The value of our name space is holding high across the world, as Australia currently holds the highest ccTLD domain name sale for this year, and I am about to release the second highest sale in the next few days.
The UBU problem is the core issue here. It has clearly become out of control for a long time now. It has the potential of not only greatly watering down value of individual names and the market in general, but the trust of the ccTLD in general.
auDA need to quickly and thoroughly address this issue and implement new policy and complaint rules. How many times do we have to say this?