I wouldn’t be surprised if the complaints team at auDA and the tech support team over at Synergy Wholesale are literally just pushing the “forward” button on complaints whilst munching on pizza and listening to Nickelback on fancy bluetooth headphones.
As mentioned in my article a few days ago, anonymous complaints are OUT OF HAND and auDA and Synergy Wholesale can clearly be seen as both downright lazy and un-empathetic to domain name owners in this latest example.
Today, JW Brick & Stone received a SEVEN DAY DELETION NOTICE (WARRANTY CHECK) from Synergy Wholesale, stating:
We have received an eligibility complaint relating to the Registrant that is currently associated to jwbrickandstone.com.au is not eligible to hold the domain name. auDA are unable to determine the registrant’s eligibility from the information in the .au database or via any information on the registrant’s website.
Here is the full complaint:
The copy-and-paste robotic standard text clearly states:
Under auDA policy a close and substantial connection is established where, for example, the domain name refers to a product or service that the registrant provides.
Please provide the response to auDA (via Synergy Wholesale Pty Ltd) by no later than 5pm 7 days after this email.
Please note that if we do not receive a response before the deadline, we will instruct Synergy Wholesale Pty Ltd to delete the domain name for breach of policy.
This clearly shows auDA are responsible for verifying the complaint IS LEGITIMATE, and then requesting Synergy Wholesale to deal with it.
The only problem is…
The complaint is NOT LEGITIMATE!
Here is proof that can be established by literally spending ten seconds performing basic entry-level research, that this is a vexatious waste-of-time complaint:
The WHOIS for jwbrickandstone.com.au states the following:
And the ABN Lookup (below) clearly shows that the ABN and Business Name are PERFECTLY WITHIN RIGHTS to claim a CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION to owning the domain name.
The ABN of the Registrant clearly states: J & W Brick & Stone in the Trading Names section.
I am lost for words.
If this isn’t a perfect example of CLOSE & SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION – then God help us all!
This is one of auDA’s most basic roles.
Who exactly at auDA received this vexatious complaint, that is clearly a waste of time – due to the domain name CLEARLY meeting close and substantial connection, and decided for their own personal reasons that it DIDN’T meet the policy rules?
And then, who exactly at auDA forwarded this wrongful complaint to Synergy Wholesale, stating their client was against policy (when they weren’t!!!!)
And then, who exactly at Synergy Wholesale just took auDA’s word for it, and passed on the complaint to the customer of one of their resellers, without caring or performing their own due diligence on the legitimacy of the complaint?
auDA didn’t care about Synergy Wholesale or the Reseller or the Domain Name Owner.
Synergy Wholesale didn’t care about their Reseller’s reputation or the Domain Name Owner.
Shame on you auDA and Synergy Wholesale.
Shame for wasting your reseller’s time and the domain name owner’s time!
Please act quickly auDA, to put this right. Then make sure this stops happening.
And here’s a free heads-up to Synergy Wholesale: you might want to double-check emails you get from auDA from now on, as this example clearly proves auDA MAKE MISTAKES. And this is a big one. Please protect your resellers and domain name owners by defending them as your first port of call.
The biggest thing that has to happen, is what I and others have been saying for a while now.
We need to CHANGE auDA POLICY so that anonymous cowards can’t make nasty vexatious complaints against legitimate domain name holders and waste everyone’s time.
UPDATE & OFFICIAL auDA RESPONSE – 27th JUNE, 2018
It is appropriate that I reply on behalf of auDA regarding this post as it would be beneficial to provide some clarity around the complaints management process.
auDA does perform research on each and every domain name before a complaint is processed. It is our role to investigate the issues by requesting further information from the relevant parties before assessing these issues against our published policies.
In regards to this specific matter, there is a reason why we have proceeded with a complaint against the domain name jwbrickandstone.com.au, but at this point in time we are not at liberty to provide additional detail. We have an obligation to the privacy of ALL parties.
Needless to say, this is not the first time that this domain name has been brought to auDA’s attention.
Breaches of policy can take many forms from a variety of actors. auDA is not obliged to communicate with the general public what investigations we undertake and the techniques used in the detecting of these domain names for good reason, as we also regularly liaise with Government departments and law enforcement in the processing of complaints. This is standard practice.
With regards to the matters raised in your post, the registrant contact simply needs to respond to the complaint appropriately as requested. It is the registrant who is required to respond consistent with our policies.
As for the complaint being processed via Synergy Wholesale, auDA has always conducted warranty check complaints through the registrar of record unless otherwise noted in policy (e.g. the Prohibition on Misspellings Policy).
I trust this clarifies the matter and I agree that there can be further reform of auDA’s policies. This is the task of the Policy Review Panel and I would encourage all of your readers to make submissions outlining where auDA’s policies can be improved. It is only with this level of constructive feedback can we achieve a result in the best interest of all parts of the .au domain industry.
CEO – auDA