Tim..... important announcement

[findtim]

the gangster / organized crime comment is a step too far for me.

i'm just detailing how i feel about the position and so do my clients, i have a client that has spent a lot of money trademarking his businesses and he felt that way, so call it whatever, don't mention associated words but the situation rings true imo.
what else can we call being put into a situation where you have to buy something, sure just say no and have someone else own it causing great confusion , legals and a considerable drop in the worth of your investment.
what else can we call something that is organised and planned?

Proper consultation before such a huge step is taken

yes, but funny how nobody talks about it being too difficult or unfair, the only talk you get is " how it will be implemented" , they are selling a product not assessing its viability.

honestly, thanks for the advice ned, i do listen

tim

 

[Lemon]

so I've decided to stand down.

You would have gotten my vote and I know that a few others would have voted for you. I think you should reconsider.

 

[neddy]

i'm just detailing how i feel about the position and so do my clients, i have a client that has spent a lot of money trademarking his businesses and he felt that way, so call it whatever, don't mention associated words but the situation rings true imo.
what else can we call being put into a situation where you have to buy something, sure just say no and have someone else own it causing great confusion , legals and a considerable drop in the worth of your investment.
what else can we call something that is organised and planned?

Tim, I call it a poor decision by auDA because it was based on inadequate consultation with all potentially affected parties. But their decision is not organised crime; nor is it gangster behaviour. Not a helpful choice of words in my opinion. Particularly if you get elected and have to work with other board members.

There has been no more committed advocate than me when it comes to being against the need for direct registrations. I will again be attending the AGM this year, and will be taking the current Board to task. The huge improvement this year is that unlimited questions from members will be allowed, and they will all be "minuted".

Will you be at the AGM? It's in Sydney this year.

 

[findtim]

we'll go with poor decision. as for sydney i would like to be there, the format sounds productive.
lemon: if i came across to strongly opinionated it was because of my passion about the issues on direct reg, of course if it gets the go for implementation then i'd be taking a similar stance to chris in ensuring the best possible out come for current domain owners.
At this stage i'd like to think auda will stand by what they said and further investigate if it is at all possible and have a far broader consultation process which in my opinion should have been done in the first place as there is still a possibility of it not going forward,
if auda truly wants a full honest view from stakeholders then it will not proceed.
as always i am open to discussion , 0439 859 860 and tim@whitecollarwebsites.com.au or via PM here.

if anyone needs clarification on where i stand please do not hesitate to contact me.

tim

 

[Lemon]

This is what I want.
.au to go ahead
Existing holders of .com.au to get first option of the .au
Pay for .au as would for a new registration (auDA would make its money potentially 10-20 million) as would the Registry
Minimum 1 year to take up option (as an owner of several 100 domains I would rather not pay all up in one go and stagger my renewals over time)
If option is not taken up then domains become available to all on first come first served basis
Also 1 - 5 year registration to actually be implemented as was recommended and accepted by the board several years ago.
Thats it.

 

[findtim]

there's 3 different items there, pick your renewal term i have always agreed with.
if it goes ahead then .com.au holders get first option i have always agreed with.
lets put bringing in .au and having to pay a defensive registration together, this i do not agree with, if the primary reason for implementation is growth which they constantly state then just do not charge for what already exists. they then will quickly see there is no growth.
if they claim .com.au is so strong why would you want to bring in something that is less? and if .au is better why would you want to keep something that is worse? only room for 1 in my view, so lets just keep what we have because of the flow on costs to SME's

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

All these new appointments have been organised by the same gang that organised the throwing out of the old CEO, the sacking of the old indepepndents and voted in direct registrations.

You're kidding youself if they are going to do anything other than what they were brought in to do.

 

[findtim]

More reason we don't want them to gain a clean sweep.
tim

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

I have to say that we are limited in the candidate statement to only a certain length. Quite frankly it is too short. My full statement is here:http://www.domainer.com.au/candidate-statement-nicole-murdoch
I don't support opening .au. I was on the minority panel. I am somewhat mystified how someone can say from my candidate statement I am moving away from my position against .au.

The two major issues I see with auDA at the moment are:
1. .au registrations are not popular and there is much criticism over the way it was handled. I'd like that addressed and if possible a "re-do";
2. staff retention/turn over. I haven't worked out if they are leaving because they are good staff who see things turning bad or bad staff who are being moved on (no offence to them at all). But something needs to be looked at.

Nicole

 

[DomainNames]

I have to say that we are limited in the candidate statement to only a certain length. Quite frankly it is too short. My full statement is here:http://www.domainer.com.au/candidate-statement-nicole-murdoch
I don't support opening .au. I was on the minority panel. I am somewhat mystified how someone can say from my candidate statement I am moving away from my position against .au.

The two major issues I see with auDA at the moment are:
1. .au registrations are not popular and there is much criticism over the way it was handled. I'd like that addressed and if possible a "re-do";

2. staff retention/turn over. I haven't worked out if they are leaving because they are good staff who see things turning bad or bad staff who are being moved on (no offence to them at all). But something needs to be looked at.

Nicole

You are spot on. You may be a bit late this year for the election as many proxy votes are already allocated perhaps but best of luck.

At least as a very qualified voice you has chosen to run and speak out against the proposed .au extension and how things have been done.

It also is good to hear really where you stand and not just 3rd person from opposing candidates. Congratulations.

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

Thanks. I never give up. Proxies don't close until 5pm and I am never giving up on arguing against direct registrations.
Plus there are people who will vote in person.

 

[snoopy]

I have to say that we are limited in the candidate statement to only a certain length. Quite frankly it is too short. My full statement is here:http://www.domainer.com.au/candidate-statement-nicole-murdoch
I don't support opening .au. I was on the minority panel. I am somewhat mystified how someone can say from my candidate statement I am moving away from my position against .au.

The two major issues I see with auDA at the moment are:
1. .au registrations are not popular and there is much criticism over the way it was handled. I'd like that addressed and if possible a "re-do";
2. staff retention/turn over. I haven't worked out if they are leaving because they are good staff who see things turning bad or bad staff who are being moved on (no offence to them at all). But something needs to be looked at.

Nicole

My advice would be to have a candidate statement which clearly states your position, most people just wasted their statement again this year with talk about themselves, their qualifications, and how great they will be. Nobody cares about that, literally nobody, and it sends across the wrong message.

Are you actually against direct registration or for them as it is not entirely clear from the above?

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

I am against them entirely. My preference is that they don't happen at all. If there is a way to stop them then I wish to take that option. (Is that clear enough?)
I can't speak for everyone and it is not my place to do so. I know some people are for them. So, if we have to have the discussion again (and that is an if and not a when) then the process needs to be handled differently. If we are stuck with the current decision then we need to look at fair implementation policies.

 

[snoopy]

I am against them entirely. My preference is that they don't happen at all. If there is a way to stop them then I wish to take that option. (Is that clear enough?)
I can't speak for everyone and it is not my place to do so. I know some people are for them. So, if we have to have the discussion again (and that is an if and not a when) then the process needs to be handled differently. If we are stuck with the current decision then we need to look at fair implementation policies.

Thanks Nicole.

 

[DomainNames]

All these new appointments have been organised by the same gang that organised the throwing out of the old CEO, the sacking of the old indepepdents and voted in direct registrations.

You're kidding youself if they are going to do anything other than what they were brought in to do.

I really do want to understand whats going on.

Where the old CEO, old independents for or against direct registrations?
What did they do to stop it or make sure surveys, materials and voting was to all stakeholders and transparent?
What did they do about the Yes Vote survey stacking by an auDA board registrar organisation?
Why did they not make sure all 3 millions existing registrants where informed?
Why travel first class...for some?
Why not go to tenders for service providers?
Why not go for Registry open tender for 8 years?
Why allow Supply auDA members and providers to dominate policy?
Why set up an auDA Foundation , Awards nights etc and give away paying domain name registrant money?
Why allow board members to have paid for trips to Icann junkets?

99.9% of people do not know who auDA is. Most do not care they just want to easily and cheaply register a domain name.

99.9% of people did not get any information provided to them about another .au extension.

This seems to have occurred for many years under the old CEO, some old auDA staff and remaining auDA board members, Independents didn't it?

Changes needed to occur but I do hope the new change is not just a makeover and new regime of the same.

It would be preferable for auDA to just make a public statement that the proposed .au is being re evaluated and is not a given now due to more engagement and facts which have come to light ( NZ/ UK results, yes vote stacking, conflicts of interest etc).

It will backfire on auDA and the Board if their new consultation is just "lip service" and again for the appearance of transparency, proper process and openness.

auDA - what is needed to happen for the proposed .au extension to be stopped? New board to make the ruling, 10,000, 50,000, 1 million existing registrants to complain on the phone and email to auDA and board members, class action lawsuit or what?