If you haven’t had a chance to read the Final Report from auDA’s PRP, don’t fret, Domainer is picking it apart over the next few days, one article at a time.
I believe Section 3.3 – the Resale and Warehousing part of the PRP’s Reform of Existing Policies Final Report should be ignored and denied by the auDA Board.
Although the crazy idea of giving the Direct .AU domain name to a registrant of a matching .com.au and .net.au via a random “lottery system” didn’t get any traction, it seems the same two individual PRP Members are having another crack at turning the Australian domain name system upside down!
This time it seems the same dynamic-duo in The PRP are trying to give birth to a new policy rule called the “Resale and Warehousing” Policy.
This potential Policy inclusion promises to throw all 2 million Australia domain name Registrants back to the stone ages if passed by the auDA Board.
You can read it for yourself starting on Page 8, Section 3.3, but in short…
“The Panel Recommends:”
No Registrant should own more than 100 Australian domain names.
A domain name must not resolve to a website that is PRIMARILY COMPUTER GENERATED.
A domain name must not be offered for sale in excess of “out-of-pocket” costs directly related to the domain name.
No one be allowed to sell more than six domain name within six months.
Can you believe it?!
I hope no one was paid for their time coming up with this garbage? If so, I’m sure the people want their money back.
Do I really have to explain, literally how STUPID it is to state in a policy paper, that is going to be read by an entire technology industry and various government bodies, that if you say a website can’t be “computer generated“…..
EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE in existence on the internet is “COMPUTER GENERATED”!
Even the Policy that was created to state this oxymoron was COMPUTER GENERATED!
It just goes to show, doesn’t it.
As mentioned in this NameBid article in March 2018, I singled-out who I believed was a bias PRP member at that time.
In that article, Brett Fenton, who had a strong influence over coming up with and “inventing” various recommended auDA Policy changes in the first versions of The PRP Reports, publicly stated on LinkedIn that he believed anyone who purchased a number of domain names was an “extortionist” who resold them to other interested parties, and Australian domain names only had a “face value of less than $50”.
Yep. He actually wrote that online.
Well, I’ve got some brand-new news for Mr Fenton, that not only opposes his viewpoint, but also comes from way up high.
Four months ago, (nine month’s after Mr Fenton stated domain names only have a “face value of $50”) the Australia Government’s Australian Institute of Criminology stated:
“It costs money to Register and maintain these cyberspace territories (domain names) created under the DNS. They have an added value beyond the cost of registration, arising from exclusive usage rights to the use of that particular domain name”.
After you read all the comments Brett Fenton publicly made on Linked In, it’s clear to see why I, and countless others, believe he was and is a driving bias force against any Australian business being able to own more than one domain name.
It’s also now very clear to see that not only didn’t he want ANYONE buying or selling a domain name for over $50 one year ago, he is now trying to implement it as Australian domain name POLICY [Page 10].
Let us also not forget that it was around this time, one year ago, that a well-respected PRP Member, Luke Summers, resigned from The PRP stating:
I no longer have confidence that the Panel can proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the Australian internet community.”
“I am greatly concerned that the Panel lacks objectivity, and that stakeholder feedback is being overwhelmingly overlooked in favour of personal views held by some Panel members.”
It now becomes clear that Luke was right and did the only thing he could to ensure he had a clear conscience moving forward.
By Brett Fenton and one or two other people creating policy changes out of thin air that state, “No Registrant can own more than 100 Australian domain names,” when NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD imposes these sorts of restrictions, it just goes to show why Section 3.3 – Resale and Warehousing can only be seen as a bias and jealous attempt to retroactively remove domain names from existing domain name holders which would only serve to cause them unwarranted financial and business damage.
In 2012, auDA updated their Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules which stated:
There is no restriction on the number of domain names that may be licensed by a registrant
But even further back than this, in July 2002, auDA’s Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules stated:
There is no restriction on the number of domain names that may be licensed by a registrant.
This means that for 17 years, auDA has not restricted Australian businesses from owning as many domain names as they like.
Just like every other country in the world.
And over the course of those 17 years, a few million Australian domain names were registered, and all those registrants completely understood those rules and took them in good faith as they invested tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising their online brands.
And now, Brett Fenton and Co want to wind back the clock?
No chance, Mr Fenton.
I, on behalf of at least 64,000 Australian domain name Registrants (who each own more than 10 domain names and collectively own 1 million) ask the auDA Board to IGNORE and DENY Section 3.3 – Resale and Warehousing from the PRP’s Final Report for 2018.
I feel that I MUST represent them, as I’m quite sure nearly the entire lot of them have NO IDEA any of this is happening?!
Don’t forget to Have Your Say!
The PRP strongly encourages the Australian Internet community to read the PRP’s recommendations and submit their feedback.
Submissions can be emailed to email@example.com
Submissions must be received no later than 5pm AEST, 10 April 2019.