Below, you will find the current list of domain names we believe are currently LOCKED by Afilias (by order of auDA) and are currently UNABLE to be renewed and will soon be LOST by the existing Registrants.

This means: every one of these domain names’ WHOIS data shows: serverUpdateProhibited

We have CHECKED.

And, according to Afilias, you can read that this means:


This status locks the domain, preventing it from being updated. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes or auDA compliance review (auDRP).

From the following list, all of these domains are in this serverUpdateProhibited status, and we will point out a few obvious domains we believe should NOT be ripped from the current owners… – Although this domain name could possibly stand for “Australian Defence Force” it can obviously also stand for dozens of other acronyms including:

  • Australia Data Field
  • Always Drug Free
  • Adelaide Data Field
  • Authenticated Data Fusion
  • Association of Digital Forensics
  • Albany Duck Farm is currently the Australian online headquarters (Melbourne-based) to ANL Group with regional offices and agents around the globe. ANL is part of the CMA CGM Group, the third largest container shipping line in the world. ANL operates on more than 200 shipping routes with over 504 vessels, calling 420 ports in 160 countries, and employs 30,000 staff in over 755 agencies and offices around the world. In 2017 they had an annual turnover of US$21.1 billion.

Do you think ANL are going to be happy when they lose their Australian online headquarters of due to auDA’s Reserved List Policy?

Do you think they are just going to let this happen without a legal fight IF they are made aware?

And how about – which appears on this list? The people who ran their eyes over this list and had the thought inside their head, “Yep, this name should be RIPPED from the current owner and BLOCKED from the general public from ever owning!” .. they need to quickly have a re-think.

Sure, one example of an acronym for this domain name could be “Royal Australia Navy”, but not only are there dozens of other acronyms this “commercial” domain name could be used for, it also blatantly stands alone as an Oxford Dictionary generic-word that works in this sentence; “I RAN to the shops!”

I’ve got some obvious news for auDA regarding the term “RAN”. Although the Royal Australian Navy work very hard for Australia and are a very important and respected force for our country, they DO NOT own this generic-word, and should not have “dibs” on this generic-word “commercial” domain name;

With these examples in mind, we believe these 75 domain names WRONGLY appear on this list and should be quickly removed before they are RIPPED AWAY from their current owners:

Meanwhile, the following 57 domain names seem to have a place on the list but should possibly be re-confirmed by a second-opinion panel:

Even though some people may believe these above names should appear on the “Reserved Policy List”, is there not an argument that ALL of these domain names are “commercial” domain names and don’t need to be “protected” by any list at all?

… in the same way EVERY OTHER ccTLD governing body govern’s their domain names.

Isn’t that what dispute processes are for?

Let us know if you have your own thoughts?

12 thoughts on “Reserved Policy List

  • November 20, 2018 at 2:32 pm

    This recent news absolutely shocks me. There are so many things wrong with it, most of which you’ve outlined very well and clearly, but another couple of points:

    Even in the topsy turvy world where these domains should not be allowed to be registered by law, why are they only being blocked from renewal and not immediately deleted at the time of this decision? What were auDA worried about by deleting them all at the same time? Were they hoping no-one would notice by simply making the renewals not possible? It seems very sneaky that they’ve gone and done it this way, as not to make such a big bang in one go.

    What about future names that don’t currently exist in the government? If these share the same acronym as an existing .au domain holder, will these names also be taken away?

    This decision really needs to be reversed. It’s really up to the auDRP to handle such disputes.

  • November 20, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    What about future names that don’t currently exist in the government? If these share the same acronym as an existing .au domain holder, will these names also be taken away?

    Good point!

    Anthony’s reply in the last article are also still very valid.

  • November 20, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    Current WHOIS for

    Domain Name: ANL.COM.AU 
    Registrar WHOIS Server: 
    Last Modified: 2018-07-31T19:34:30Z 
    Registrar Name: TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd 
    Status: serverRenewProhibited 
    Status: serverTransferProhibited 
    Status: serverUpdateProhibited 

  • November 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm

    What does “serverUpdateProhibited” mean?

    According to Afilias, exactly THIS:


    This status locks the domain, preventing it from being updated. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes or auDA compliance review (auDRP).

    • November 21, 2018 at 6:48 am

      Someone needs to have a chat then with Afilias as “serverUpdateProhibited” is actually a common status used by every expired domain for 30 days when they are locked in Expiry Hold before being purged.

      The status “serverTransferProhibited” is the uncommon status which is only seen rarely and is used during auDRP policy disputes and the new method of locking domains on the restricted list rather than deleting them.

      The Afilias page needs a revamp as it is the combination of status that have meaning rather than the individual status. For example they claim that “serverRenewProhibited” indicates “…the domain has an expiry date that is more than 90 days away…” this is only partially true because that status when combined with “serverUpdateProhibited” indicates that the domain has been expired for 30 days already and is going to be purged from the registry within 24 hours.

      • November 21, 2018 at 11:10 am

        True Anthony!

        Perhaps all this confusion really ties to Afilias getting all these status meanings perfect. Because as we stand right now, they are confusing AND could be a cause of why people are currently losing their names?

  • November 20, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    Hi Robert

    there’s a few things here which i can’t say are wrong but i am going to assume you know them based on the post. The list is quite extensive, as you know far more then you list which is public knowledge.

    the question IS, have these owners been contacted or will they just wake up one morning to find their website disappear???

    once again in the lead up to the auda AGM we should be talking about the word TRANSPARENCY which seems to be none existent.

    to me its always been a case of this ” ohhhh, you came late to the game and you are 40 points behind so you would like to start the game again” ? , doesn’t happen in real estate ! bitcoin ! shares ! for me its “COP IT, move on”



  • November 21, 2018 at 7:41 am

    this is crazy  –  we purchased  –  we are a travel agency that was going to release a website to sell packages to every grand prix around the world  – this affects jobs –   AUDA has gone mad…..

  • November 21, 2018 at 9:26 am

    You probably saved yourself some heartache as formula1 is trademarked in so many different ways. No use developing that domain because you would be getting yourself in more trouble. The person that sold it to you would have most likely realised this, AND/OR also realised it was going to be reserved. Talk to them and get angry.

    • November 21, 2018 at 10:36 am

      Unfortunately Chris, Rob makes a good point here.

      10/10 though for thinking up a clever marketing technique aimed at the large niche market of helping travellers, who love watching car racing, find the best travel deals!

      As long as the domain name isn’t infringing on Trademark Law, this is exactly the right idea to use short premium domain names for 🙂

  • November 21, 2018 at 8:40 pm

    Under Federal Legislation, the word “Australia” is not prohibited from incorporation into business name registration. Approx. 75,000 business names in the yellow pages contain the name “Australia” in their company names; Therefore, does auDA have a legal basis to restrict, delete or prohibit the word “Australia”  from the DNS registry.
    I suspect 10’s of 1000’s of domain names registered by companies with the word ‘Australia’ incorporated into their Business Name are today freaking out. Afterall, auDA’s Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Domain names in the 2LD states:
    A domain must be;
    2. (a) an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name or trademark; 
    A policy that prohibits “Australia” or any name without any legal basis for it, whilst at the same time imposes an exact match of your business name as a rule for registration, forces the business owner to breach the registration policy.   
    It only seems logical that the auDA Board remove this contradictory and ridiculous policy and reinstate those names.

  • November 23, 2018 at 5:32 am

    Smart Company caught wind of our article and wrote a follow up:

    A spokesperson for the Department of Communications said auDA was not instructed to expand its reserved list by the department or Minister Mitch Fifield.
    “The expansion of the reserved list was a result of a policy development process conducted by auDA, involving public consultations on each phase of work,” the spokesperson said.

Comments are closed.