Did Land.com.au drop for $42,000 on Netfleet?

There are still one or two lone-people in the Australian domain name industry who say, “There’s no money in .com.au domain names.” Today, yet again, it’s clear to see they don’t know what they’re talking about.

According to Netfleet, Land.com.au just sold for $42,000 today.

If Land.com.au is worth $42,000 on the drop systems, as a “wholesale” price… exactly what is this domain name worth to an end-user, such as the RealEstate.com.au or Domain.com.au corporations?

And we’re not just talking about the domain name value alone, here… If someone invests another $100,000 developing this domain name over the next 12 months, how much will this new BUSINESS be worth in a few years time?

$1,000,000 ?

Definitely.

But what’s really interesting, and what we should get into a great deal of discussion over in regards to this premium domain name being placed into Policy Delete by auDA (Australian Domain Administration), is HOW this extremely valuable piece of online real estate ended up on the public drop-catching platforms to begin with.

This definitely looks like a case of an “anonymous” complainer submitting a formal COMPLAINT to auDA, via the complaint form on auDA’s website.

WHO made this complaint?

Which single person made this complaint against Land.com.au that caused the domain name, that had been owned at least since April 2nd, 2003 (16 years ago)?

Only auDA know who made this complaint. They know who it is.

And this is a major problem we have been discussing here on Domainer for many years.

It’s not fair that people making complaints against domain name holders are anonymous.

Did the RealEstate.com.au company make this complaint?

Did a competitor land-sale-business make this complaint?

Did a domain investor make this complaint?

Did one of the drop-platforms make this complaint themselves so they could make a $42,000 in one day?

I’m not suggesting any of the above people DID make the complaint. But how do we know?

The only way we can know is for auDA to put an end to anonymous complaints.

Anonymous domain name complaints equate to an unfair system.

That being said, let’s now look at the rules that allowed this complaint to cause the domain that was owned for 16 years, to appear on the drop list to begin with.

In terms of the sequence of events that seem to have lead to Land.com.au appearing on the drop list today, things seem to appear as follows:

In January, a “mystery person” seems to have made a formal complaint to auDA that the ABN for the Registrant who owns Land.com.au has been expired since 2003.

Here is the WHOIS information of the Registrant in January 2019:

Domain Name: LAND.COM.AU
Registry Domain ID: D407400000001334179-AU
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.auda.org.au
Registrar URL:
Last Modified: 2018-11-29T00:00:25Z
Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Pty Ltd
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Reseller Name:
Status: ok https://afilias.com.au/get-au/whois-status-codes#ok
Registrant Contact ID: ID00230174-PR
Registrant Contact Name: null null
Tech Contact ID: ID00230174-PR
Tech Contact Name: null null
Name Server: NS3.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 173.230.147.75
Name Server: NS1.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 202.174.100.15
Name Server: NS2.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 119.148.81.5
DNSSEC: unsigned
Registrant: Land.com.au International Pty Ltd
Registrant ID: ABN 73093398844
Eligibility Type: Company

And here is the ABN Lookup record of the matching 73093398844 EXPIRED ABN:

Entity name:LAND.COM.AU INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
ABN status:Cancelled from 30 Jun 2003
Entity type:Australian Private Company
Goods & Services Tax (GST):Not currently registered for GST
Main business location:QLD 4007

In then appears, that the Registrant’s Registrar, Planet Domains, has been involved in helping the Registrant to CHANGE the ABN associated with owning the domain name, on the 5th of February, in hopes of holding onto it.

Here is the updated information of the Registrant in February 2019:

Domain Name: LAND.COM.AU
Registry Domain ID: D407400000001334179-AU
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.auda.org.au
Registrar URL:
Last Modified: 2019-02-05T02:49:18Z
Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Pty Ltd
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Reseller Name:
Status: pendingDelete https://afilias.com.au/get-au/whois-status-codes#pendingDelete
Status: serverHold https://afilias.com.au/get-au/whois-status-codes#serverHold
Status: serverRenewProhibited https://afilias.com.au/get-au/whois-status-codes#serverRenewProhibited
Status: redemptionPeriod https://afilias.com.au/get-au/whois-status-codes#redemptionPeriod
Registrant Contact ID: A15486234565210
Registrant Contact Name: Paul Seils
Tech Contact ID: A15486234565210
Tech Contact Name: Paul Seils
Name Server: NS3.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 173.230.147.75
Name Server: NS1.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 202.174.100.15
Name Server: NS2.WYNNUMMANLY.COM.AU
Name Server IP: 119.148.81.5
DNSSEC: unsigned
Registrant: The Trustee for GCI (Australia) Trust
Registrant ID: ABN 91881423836
Eligibility Type: Company

And here is the UPDATED VALID ABN Lookup record of the NEW ABN 91 881 423 836

Entity name:The Trustee for GCI (Australia) Trust
ABN status:Active from 25 Sep 2003
Entity type:Discretionary Investment Trust
Goods & Services Tax (GST):Not currently registered for GST
Main business location:QLD 4133

The problem seems to be, although the Registrant had owned the domain name for at least 16 years with an EXPIRED ABN, and then CHANGED their ABN to an ACTIVE ABN…. There is a “gap” of 87 days between the first ABN expiring, and the second ABN being registered…

So, auDA seem to have considered this information and then declared this “gap” to mean that the Registrant is NOT ABLE TO CHANGE the ABN and hold onto the domain name.

And so the domain name APPEARS ON THE PUBLIC DROP AUCTIONS!

One wonders how much help Planet Domains gave their customer, in this regard?

So, some pertinent questions in regards to the dropping of this ultra premium domain name Land.com.au remain…

  1. Which single person initiated this complaint?
  2. Why are complaints to auDA still allowed to be “anonymous” when they are clearly not fair?
  3. Why do auDA rules stipulate there can’t be a “gap” between ownership of an ABN that expires and registration of a new ABN?

11 thoughts on “Did Land.com.au drop for $42,000 on Netfleet?

  • Avatar
    February 19, 2019 at 2:17 pm
    Permalink

    I have to say you did some good research. I must sound like a broken record but I’ll tell my story again. Somebody complained about my generic .com.au (but didnt on the net.au) domain name which I purchased for 10k many years ago to go along with the already-owned .com – and I was given 30 days to rectify the situation of my expired business name. There was no way to actually do this because the name had been expired for too long to re-enable it and I was getting nowhere with this through the relevant government bodies. However, NetRegistry was a big help, and I did notice that as long as I was actively trying to sort the issue out they were willing to help to find a way to keep the name, and the 30 day period was extended to over 60 days whilst I was sorting out relevant paperwork. In the end, after many processes failed to convince AUDA, a statutory declaration was made stating that the name was in fact meant to be transferred to the new entity whilst both existed (no gaps), and I was allowed to keep the name.

    The annoying part is that there is a new practice where an entity complains about names only to buy them at auction. For the complainer its a win/win because they have nothing to lose, and even if they dont get the highest bid at auction they walk away to the next domain of interest. But a business owning a name like land.com.au might not have the 42k cashflow right now and loses the name just for someone else to take a gamble.

    Since my incident I have looked at a few generics that have been dropped due to policy deletes and picked up at the drop and there doesn’t seem to be a single buyer who looks to be benefiting from all the drops… So who is?

    The lesson is to stick to a good registrar and also speak to the right person. The registrar wants to help customers, so try and work it out together and ask for more time if needed.

  • Avatar
    February 19, 2019 at 5:54 pm
    Permalink

    Great post Rob

    The Policy Delete system currently in place by auDA needs to be updated so anonymous complaints cannot be made. At least have the balls to show your face if you are the one with the issue!

    There are to many ways this could be abused, Land.com.au may be one of those that has been the victim of the loophole.

    I think we should dedicate a separate podcast episode to this one, what do you think?

    Would anyone else like to hear more from Rob and I on our opinions on this topic?

    Cheers

    Ed

    Like
    Robert likes this.
    • Avatar
      February 19, 2019 at 6:55 pm
      Permalink

      Definately would like to hear a lot more about this… Not much of a safe asset with value if they can be ripped away…

  • Avatar
    February 20, 2019 at 2:00 am
    Permalink

    Domain names ARE as safe as houses so to speak.

    Before being held in the name of the trust, the domain was held by a deregistered company that failed to transfer it to another entity before that company was deregistered (ceased to exist as a seperate legal entity).

    The rules about domain names are similar to the rules for real property and other assets. A non-existent entity cannot hold property (eg. buildings, chattels etc) and any such things later found to be in the name of that entity post-deregistration are deemed forfeit to the State (ASIC).

    So there is no foul play towards the former registrant here as the former registrant does not exist.

    A company is a separate legal entity.

    A Director has a duty to act in the best interests of their company.

    Hence if a Director has wound up his company or it has been deregistered prior to disposing of material assets then that Direcror has failed in his duties to his company (to members / shareholders of that company).

    Hence it is the former Director(s) who have failed, not the complainant who has complained in accordance with policy, not auDA, not the registry etc.

    It really is up to domain investors to treat their assets like real property and chattels.

    Compliance is not at all onerous. Performing CoR prior to deregistration was all that was required.

    In this case the Director failed to do so, thus it is clear that the former company did not value the domain name and did not wish to retain the licence.

    I have nothing to do with what has happened here but this is my take on why it has happened and why it was allowed to happen.

    • Avatar
      February 20, 2019 at 8:50 am
      Permalink

      “Performing CoR prior to deregistration was all that was required.”

      That’s easy to say these days but back in 2003 I’m sure it was a totally different story.

      I think a little bit of leighway should have been taken on in this particular case.

      There needs to be more information on why these domains are put into pending delete. A generic domain name that is worth a good amount of money. It’s a gold mine out there for the drop catching registrars, they are the real ones making money off these complaints. Are they the ones putting the complaints in?

      Transparency now

  • Avatar
    February 20, 2019 at 9:07 am
    Permalink

    Any idea why land.com.au is back on the drops again today on Drop/NF?

    Like
    Robert likes this.
  • Avatar
    February 20, 2019 at 9:54 am
    Permalink

    LAND.com.au didn’t sell for some reason yesterday, although Netfleet’s platform proclaimed they “caught” it for $42,000.

    Who had $42,000 on it yesterday?

    Will someone JUMP THAT PRICE today?

    • Avatar
      February 20, 2019 at 3:10 pm
      Permalink

      As I am aware, $50k is taken on on Drop.com.au, not sure sure about higher levels.

  • Avatar
    February 20, 2019 at 6:52 pm
    Permalink

    If the name was transferred to the existing owners as part of a sale agreement then there is the potential for the current owner to go to the auDA Registrant Review Panel.

    The recent decision on stewartmedia.com.au could possibly set a precedent. That name was transferred to the existing owner even though the name was registered to a company that had been deregistered for many years.

    • Avatar
      February 20, 2019 at 7:13 pm
      Permalink

      Where the former owner entered into the sale agreement (but failed to transfer) prior to deregistration / ceasing to exist then yes all good.

      In fact there are similar provisions for real property and chattels with ASIC.

      But strong evidence needs to be provided proving agreement to sell / transfer was made at a time when the entity was still registered / actually existed.

  • Avatar
    February 20, 2019 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    Land.com.au dropped TWICE over Tuesday 19th and Wednesday 20th. Was “caught” for $42,000 on Netfleet on the Tuesday and $31,000 on the Wednesday… Yet, the domain name will DROP AGAIN tomorrow on Thursday 21st February. Check out the next new article regarding this ongoing LAND.com.au saga….

Comments are closed.