Wallpapers.com.au dropping today because auDA’s Compliance Manager says so.

According to auDA’s new complaint manager’s Linked In profile, Steph Viljoen literally sits upon a golden throne.

A few weeks ago, out of the blue, a domain name owner received a complaint against one of his domain names.

He was unsuccessful in defending that particular complaint, so asked for an “internal review” by auDA.

THE VERY NEXT DAY after he made this “internal review” request, he received 19 official auDA complaints against other generic domain names in his portfolio.

That’s NINETEEN COMPLAINTS after the initial complaint.

Who could have made these 19 domain name complaints within hours of an auDA internal review being requested?

Some of the highly-generic domain names featured in the second round of complaints were:

  • Wallpapers.com.au
  • Javascript.com.au
  • GolfAcademy.com.au
  • Mags.com.au
  • jco.com.au

The domain name Javascript.com.au alone was registered by the domain owner since 2002. His business in this regard has always been called Advanced Web Creations.

It is as plain as day to see that the owner of Javascript.com.au owned the domain name for 17 YEARS with a clear CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION to his business name.

Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Yet, Steph Viljoen, (featured sitting on a golden throne as per her own Linked In profile) who is auDA’s fresh-newbieCompliance Manager“, has seemingly taken it upon herself to place this generic domain name, and multiple other generic domain names, into POLICY DELETE.

Javascript.com.au is WRONGFULLY (in my opinion) being deleted and is available for the general public to buy, on TODAY’S DROP PLATFORMS.

I, for one, will not be placing a bid on Wallpapers.com.au or the Javascript.com.au domain names today, because I don’t think it’s fair they have been deleted by auDA.

I personally believe what Steph Viljoen (as auDA’s Complaint Manager) has done, in regards to deleting these domain names, is WRONG and I hope Advanced Web Creations are able to secure their own domain names back for themselves in the next few hours…

This is Steph Viljoen‘s own reasoning for deleting Javascript.com.au today:

The registrant has advised the following:

“This domain name has been registered since 30th October 2002 and was presenting our Domain Name Hosting and Web Design Service at the time. Please see way back archive page below from 2003.

JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted or just-in-time compiled programming language with first-class functions. It is most well-known as the scripting language for Web pages. Domain Host and Advanced Web Creations Pty Ltd are the same owners and offered both web site hosting and web design.

Today Domain Host no longer exists/owned by us as explained in the introduction and the domain JavaScript.com.au is now redirecting to Advanced Web Creations Pty Ltd, where the business is developing website for internal projects (domains owned by Advanced Web Creations) and a handful of clients who some have been with the company for 15+ years. JavaScript is a service that AWC provides.”

The registrant’s stated basis for eligibility is not an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name or trademark, nor does it fall under one of the close and substantial connection criteria. As noted by the registrant, “javascript” is a programming language, it is not a service. “Javascripting” would indicate a service, not the actual product itself. As previously noted, this was also not a monetised domain name, nor, as a brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered, could it be. Therefore, the registrants stated basis for eligibility is not based on auDA policy and the domain name must be policy deleted.

Similar responses were received by Steph Viljoen in regards to Wallpapers.com.au and GolfAcademy.com.au(,) which are clearly highly-generic domain names, with those domains being policy deleted as well.

Dozens of us pour our time, sweat and tears into this industry over years and decades, only to see auDA seemingly give judge, jury and execution powers to a brand-new single-person who virtually has NO EXPERIENCE in the domain name industry and has only ever worked to protect large corporations in the past.

This is one of many stories coming up on Domainer in regards to the way auDA’s new Complaints Manager is choosing to steer our industry.

21 thoughts on “Wallpapers.com.au dropping today because auDA’s Compliance Manager says so.

  • Scott.L
    June 7, 2019 at 3:58 am
    Permalink

    Based on her interpretation, any domain name that’s a noun is doomed to be deleted.

    Perhaps the correct interpretation applied here would be, a Product that the registrant manufactures or sells?

    For example, a painter might register “paint” he provides a service and supplies the product, in the same way JavaScript is the paint that makes the walls pretty (He sells the service as the product).

    Another would be a Profession that the registrant’s members practice; for example, a writer registers the domain “alphabet” the domain “alphabet” is not a service, it’s a language (code) and substantially connected to the practice of writing, in the same way JavaScript is a computational language (the alphabet) which provides an ongoing service when programmed.

    Like
    3 people like this.
  • Scott.L
    June 7, 2019 at 4:06 am
    Permalink

    Javascripting does not exist in the dictionary… its not a real word.

    Like
    3 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 7, 2019 at 11:35 am
    Permalink

    http://jaasjs.com/

    auDA should become to internet police. Tell this guy his ideas are incorrect.

    Like
    3 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 7, 2019 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    So, let me get this right? This domain owner asked for an internal review over one domain name, to go above the complaint manager’s head, and then she filed a further 19 complaints against the guy?

    Like
    7 people like this.
    • Avatar
      June 8, 2019 at 4:36 pm
      Permalink

      That’s a good question, Brad. We are not sure.

      We have been told directly by the domain owner though, that he received 19 complaints THE DAY AFTER he asked for an “internal review” on a single domain name decision.

      I plan to ask this question to auDA on Monday;

      “WHO submitted those 19 domain complaints against the domain owner?”

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 7, 2019 at 12:41 pm
    Permalink

    5.3 (a) request the registrant to resolve the problem or rectify a breach of policy;

    It sounds very heavy handed, why not offer the registrant a chance to correct the problem – it takes 1 minute to monetise the site.

    Like
    4 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 7, 2019 at 2:37 pm
    Permalink

    It’s an iron throne. The Iron Throne. Has Game of Thrones not made it down under yet? 😉

    Like
    6 people like this.
    • Avatar
      June 8, 2019 at 4:56 pm
      Permalink

      I stand corrected.

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 7, 2019 at 7:55 pm
    Permalink

    If the person does not have a business or pattern of conduct of monetisation they cannot assert that in relation to a name later

    This is probably why the registrant lost those names?

    Generally no business / evidence of monetisation

    • Avatar
      June 8, 2019 at 8:58 am
      Permalink

      Rubbish. We’re talking about being targeted and owning generic domain names here, not trademark infringement, bad faith or cybersquatting.

      Like
      3 people like this.
      • Avatar
        June 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
        Permalink

        You cannot own a generic name without a basis for registration. Rob you are just a little guppy with no clue and about to get publicly humiliated at WIPO.

        I don’t know whose commentary is worse, you or #scottnogooddomains

        Like
        • Avatar
          June 8, 2019 at 12:45 pm
          Permalink

          Anonymous “Harry” then emailed me:

          ——————

          From: Harry
          Subject:
          Phone (if provided):
          IP address: 1.152.108.148

          Message Body:
          Rob don’t publish my last comment. You need to learn pal. Too reactionary and you don’t listen good advice

          I screen shotted that my last comment was waiting for moderation. If you foolishly want to publish it then that’s your decision


          This e-mail was sent via the contact form on Domainer.com.au (https://domainer.com.au)

        • Avatar
          June 20, 2019 at 8:25 am
          Permalink

          NEWS JUST IN (JUNE 20): “Little guppy with no clue defends WIPO CASE against $1.6 Billion Golfing Company and two sets of lawyers! OGIO.com.au complaint DENIED!”

          • Avatar
            June 25, 2019 at 7:49 pm
            Permalink

            If the domain name was loading a website that was specifically for it just as if a website called

            Advanced Web Creations JavaScript Services

            Rather than redirecting then it would be a valid purpose for the domain.

            That is, can the act of using it as a 301 redirect be considered an invalid use of a domain? Problematic if true because that is often how a misspelling or .net.au or other .com.au domain might be used to forward to a main .com.au or .com?

    • Avatar
      June 8, 2019 at 3:06 pm
      Permalink

      So it says in the policy, “you must have a pattern of conduct of monetisation or a business of monetisation to be able to register domains for monetisation” ?

      Like
      Anonymous likes this.
      • Avatar
        June 8, 2019 at 4:52 pm
        Permalink

        In auDA’s Complaints Policy it states:

        5.2 auDA will investigate the complaint on the basis of whether there has been a breach of auDA policy, not on the basis of whether the complainant has a better claim to the domain name, or whether the complainant’s rights have been infringed.

        5.3 If the complaint is upheld, auDA may take one or more of the following actions:

        a) request the registrant to resolve the problem or rectify a breach of policy;

        I’m told the domain owner rectified the breach of policy, yet his generic domain names were still deleted.

        Other domain investors appear to have secured the domain names now.

        The main question here is still;

        WHO made the 19 domain name complaints after the “internal review” (on one single domain name) was requested?

        Like
        2 people like this.
        • Avatar
          June 8, 2019 at 8:37 pm
          Permalink

          auDA doesn’t need a complaint on a name to delete a name

          The registrant requested a review and auDA acted accordingly

          • Avatar
            June 9, 2019 at 11:20 am
            Permalink

            So what I’m reading is .au Domain Administration company cultural is to act accordingly and punish anyone asking for a review by going over all their domain names. That’s .un Australian.

            Like
            3 people like this.
            • Avatar
              June 9, 2019 at 1:32 pm
              Permalink

              This should have been sent to the REGISTRANT REVIEW PANEL

              Policy Title: Registrant Review Panel Rules
              The fee for submitting an Application is $250.00 (ex GST) which must be paid to auDA at the time the Application is submitted.

              The decision was borderline criminal.

              Like
              2 people like this.
    • Scott.L
      June 8, 2019 at 4:11 pm
      Permalink

      Harry, your assertion is that the registrant does not meet the close and substantial rule, being the basis for registration. Also, were the domains registered under a grandfather provision (17 years ago) who knows? Just like who knows what domains I hold, except a registrar or auDA.

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    June 9, 2019 at 2:49 pm
    Permalink

    2012-05 – Guidelines on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for Open 2LDs

    10.7 The requested domain name does not have to be the same as the registrant’s product, service, hobby etc. The domain name must only refer to the registrant’s product, service, hobby etc. This allows the registrant to license variations or descriptions of their product, service, hobby.

    ALLOWS THE REGISTRANT TO LICENSE VARIATIONS OR DESCRIPTIONS OF THEIR PRODUCT, SERVICE, HOBBY

    This mess of an organisation needs to put focus on more important things, like the 300k out of date registrants, instead of thieving domain names off valid registrants.

Comments are closed.