My position on the need for direct registrations is well known. I was against it when I was on the 2015 Names Panel (and was part of the Minority Report) – and I have been consistent in that stance ever since.
But here’s the thing. It went through an established Panel process, and the majority of the Panel voted in favour of it (noting that implementation was an important issue to be addressed). The auDA Board then accepted that recommendation back in April 2016. So proper process has been followed to date. If that’s to change, then it has to be a political decision (as in auDA Board).
What it now comes down to is how best to implement direct registrations. And that’s what the Policy Review Panel (PRP) is all about. The terms of reference are quite clear – the PRP is not revisiting the merits of direct registrations. As a member of the PRP, I noted my concerns in the inaugural Minutes. The Chair acknowledged these.
What Do You Say?
Everybody acknowledges that one of the complexities of introducing direct registrations is addressing prior rights of existing registrants and stakeholders – and doing so in a fair and equitable manner. In order for the PRP to make informed recommendations to the auDA Board, it’s important that registrants participate by lodging a submission on the questions in the Issues Paper (page 4). Deadline is 10th November.
I published the 10 questions in a previous blog post. Let me highlight just one of these questions to get you started – and it’s the first one.
“What date should be chosen as the cut-off date for determining registrant eligibility for priority registration of the second level domain name, and why?”
This is actually really important, because it potentially affects who has the opportunity to be eligible for an .au. Most domain spaces around the world have always had a cut-off date when they have introduced direct registrations. e.g. Both the UK and NZ did. They do this to try and be fair – and to avoid speculation.
Let me give you a hypothetical example of how this works. Let’s say the PRP recommends 30th September 2017 as the cut-off date (again that date is hypothetical). That means that every registrant that holds any Australian domain at that date is potentially “in the mix” for the .au (however priority is determined). But if you purchase a domain after this date (no matter whether it is a com.au or any other extension), then you are not in the running to even be considered for the .au.
That should focus your mind, and help you answer this particular question!
Submissions can be emailed to policy.review@auda.org.au ; or posted to:
Policy Review Panel
c/o .au Domain Administration Ltd
PO Box 18315
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Ned O’Meara – 17th October 2017
My Disclaimer
♦ I am a member of this Panel, and have given my commitment as to the confidentiality of the process. Therefore, whilst you are welcome to make comments and ask questions, I may only be able to respond generally.
♦ Please note that there will be Minutes published of each PRP meeting. As this is an independent panel, these should be fairly prompt compared to what one normally expects with auDA!
General Disclaimer
It’s impossible to equitably assign rights to this bastard (.au) which is a very good reason to reject it.
What is it good for, absolutely no… no wait, it’s good for lawyers!
Well said David.
People should use their submission as an opportunity to tell AUDA exactly what they think of the proposal. Ignore AUDA’s request that the merits of the proposal should not be addressed, this is exactly what this is about.
Time to stand up!
The person who spent 5 figures on expired auctions yesterday either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the possibility of Q1 becoming a reality.
Jeff
Ned I dispute your claim “proper process has been followed to date.” I believe a capable investigation, legal firm, Government Senate Committee will be able to prove otherwise.
The process was heavily tainted. 95% of existing .au registrant consumers still have not been contacted by auDA to advise them of anything.
Certain parties with possible conflicts of interest appear to have pushed their agenda I feel via inappropriate means “the yes only vote solicitation campaign” etc.
Calling for input but using certain questions which lead to a yes response, claims “the .uk and .nz have been “remarkably successful” when they have not been, directing independent bodies what not to write, not contacting all existing .au registrant consumers, having people with conflicts of interest heavily involved in the decision making process etc….
I will not do a full list and debate it with you here.. as I said that will be tendered most probably more officially at the appropriate time by others.
Too many questions about proper governance are unanswered and it may be the tip of the iceberg until a full investigation of auDA and it’s processes followed to date takes place…This includes a full investigation into how the proposed extra competing .au extension has got to this stage of the auDA process.
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula
_________________
The auDA Board can choose to not proceed the auDA CEO stated on the record. The fact is many want this to be a done deal so they can make more money and of course that would include auDA themselves.. still with over $10 million in the bank and hungry for more money to feed itself. … auDA’s bills keep increasing as they use more auditors, consultants, lawyers, FBT ATO tax bills appear.….https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula
@Sean – you probably need to read my article again.
Don’t shoot the PRP – they are doing what they have been instructed to do by the auDA Board.
Whilst you make some excellent points, any change to current circumstances will ultimately be a “political” decision. i.e. auDA Board or higher authority.
Its an important point Ned, my advice to the panel in my paper was to have a 12 month period for allocation. During this 12 month period, up to the date and time of live registration (the cut off), a domain registrant holding a com.au is automatically eligible for the proposed new extension, including new keyboard registration, expired domains, and change of registrant. It’s commercially unreasonable to prohibit any registrant from the proposed new extension prior to it going live. Any right to the proposed new extension ends when that allocation period ends.
Ned wrote:
May I suggest that direct registrations should also be done in an ‘economical manner’ – with economy, thrift, least cost, avoidance of waste and extravagance.
This is an important consideration in relation to Australian small businesses as end-users of .au domain names. There are over 2.1 million small businesses in Australia.
auDA has a responsibility to contact each and every one of those existing 2.1 million existing .au registrants and provide full information about the proposed extra competing .au extension, the costs, risks affect it may occur on them.
Why is auDA stubbornly refusing to email all of the existing .au registrants? auDA is leaving themselves wide open to potential serious issues.
99% of existing .au registrants do not even know about the extra .au extension. ….Some people want it this way…. keep them in the dark… push it in and make the money $$$$
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
That would be something like the Malta example.
Unfortunately AUDA is the complete opposite, the proposal is all about making more money at the expense of businesses.