Reflections On A Sunday – 3 April

HinchinbrookHere is another glorious shot of “my neck of the woods” – Far North Queensland.

This was taken at Cardwell looking out to the magnificent Hinchinbrook Island. Cardwell is a great stopping point between Townsville and Cairns. Arguably the best fish and chips in the country! 😉

For those possibly not aware, this beautiful little town and surrounding areas were almost wiped out in 2011 by Cyclone Yasi. The Herald Sun produced some amazing photos of the power of nature back then.

By the way, that little yellow sign in the foreground of the picture warns you not to mess with the crocs!

Reflection 1

Imagine this scenario. You make someone an offer to buy their vacant piece of land, but because your offer is way under value, the vendor rejects it. They give you a counter offer based on some comparative values, but you are not prepared to pay that price.

You then express your indignation to the seller that they are just sitting on that piece of land, and not doing anything with it. It’s totally unfair. You bandy around words like “squatter”. The seller laughs, and politely tells you that it’s not illegal to invest in land. They suggest that if you’re not prepared to pay a fair price, then you can “go and get nicked”! That’s generally the end of the story.

Play this same scenario out with domain names in Australia. If someone makes a silly offer, and they get politely rebuffed, they can then go off to auDA and complain that the registrant of the domain is not utilising the domain name properly. Therefore the name should be stripped from the dastardly squatter.

Does the above sound ridiculous? To me it does – but believe me when I tell you that this happens every day. Fortunately, the staff at auDA are well versed in fairly dealing with such complaints. Generally speaking, it comes down to both registrants and complainants understanding policy requirements. Whilst this auDA blog article is 5 years old, it is still very relevant, and worth a read.

Example: A mate of mine recently received an offer on a single dictionary word domain name. He declined the offer, and next thing he knows, he gets a complaint from auDA. You don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out who may have made the complaint!

The reason for getting the complaint was because his parking page did not have monetisation links to the particular word. Given that his eligibility to hold the domain name (close and substantial connection) is based on domain monetisation, it was his obligation under policy to make sure his parking page complied. auDA quite rightly gave him the opportunity to comply with policy within a 7 day period (which he did).


Reflection 2

Last week, I mentioned that another mate had some issues with eligibility with regards his Super Fund being the registrant of domains.

I wanted to give a big hat tip to Stuart Benjamin (Demand Class Director / Chairman of auDA) – and to Vanessa from auDA. My mate has been a “demand class member” of auDA for years, so I simply facilitated an introduction to Stuart.

Whilst the “problem” can’t be fixed straight away, both Stuart and Vanessa did their best to assist with some interim measures. And it looks like the issue may well be considered at policy level in the very near future.

So well done Stu and Vanessa – it’s really heartening to know that auDA is there to assist where possible. My mate is very grateful.

That’s why it is so important to be an auDA member. If you do have an issue, then get hold of your relevant Director. There are four in Demand Class; and four in Supply Class (plus a few independents). As most of them say in their emails at election time, they welcome contact from their “constituents”. 🙂


As always, I welcome your comments and thoughts.

Best wishes for your online success.

One thought on “Reflections On A Sunday – 3 April

  • April 3, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Good outcomes. Sounds like logic and fairness prevailed.

    Whenever I hear of a buyer crying to auDA when the seller won’t sell them the name for a ridiculously cheap price, I can’t help but imagine a 3-year old having a tantrum in a shopping centre when he isn’t allowed to have 10 chocolates.

Comments are closed.