Yet Another Backflip By auDA?

Just received the message below from Helen Hollins which has been sent to all members.

I think I must be physic, because I have been foreshadowing this.

Having not been given any formal explanation as to why this is now necessary, in my opinion, this is a total backflip of what was previously agreed by the auDA Board.

I’m particularly peed off because it now seems like I also wasted my time being on the working group. As did other members. Why hold these in the first place if this type of thing happens?

And just so there is no misunderstanding, this is the excerpt from the auDA Board Minutes back on the 18th February 2013:

6. Policy Development
2012 Industry Advisory Panel:
The 2012 Industry Advisory Panel Final report and recommendations were circulated to the Board for review and approval. The Board passed the following resolutions (proposed J Rowe, seconded J Hammer):

That the Board accept recommendation 1A:
a) the competitive registry model should be retained;
b) auDA should initiate renegotiations with AusRegistry to extend contractual arrangements for 2, 3 or 4 years;
c) auDA should seek stakeholder input on relevant negotiating factors prior to the renegotiations with AusRegistry;
d) if renegotiations with AusRegistry fail, auDA should proceed to conduct a formal RFT process; and
e) the auDA Board should publicly commit to undertaking a formal RFT process once the renegotiated registry agreement expires.

Read this post that I wrote back on November 15.

Interesting also that this “news” is released less than 2 weeks before Christmas – smacks of “opportunistic political timing” to me.

What do you think?

Ned O’Meara – 13th December 2016


10 thoughts on “Yet Another Backflip By auDA?

  • December 13, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Does this mean that they will backflip on Direct registration? 🙂

  • December 13, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Reading that statement from 2013 in light of today it sounds like AUDA is just kicking the can down the road, claiming they will one day go to tender with no intention of ever doing so.

    I’d say Ausregistry is going to have them for lunch in a negotiation situation now because it is clear AUDA isn’t able to walk away from Ausregistry and isn’t genuine about a tender process no matter what AUDA claims they might do.

  • December 13, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    What bait did Neustar use to continue services with auDA?

    Anonymous likes this.
  • December 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    Do I recall correctly that the CEO said direct registrations would be decided upon before they negotiated a new registrar contract?

    Now more than ever, I cannot see direct registrations being stopped.  I know people are saying it’s not a done deal and we shouldn’t give in, but does anyone really think they’re not going to be pushed through?

    • December 14, 2016 at 11:04 am

      @Shane – no question that direct registrations are probably going to happen. There is an appetite on the current Board. Stranger things have happened though! Let’s see what Deloitte have to say about the business case.

      I am still comforted by what happened in the UK. It was supposedly a done deal there – Nominet kept trying to push things through like auDA is doing today. Ultimately, people and business power forced them to change tack. Three submissions later, direct registrations were brought in with favourable terms for holders. And three years later, Nominet wishes they had never gone down the direct reg path! The lesson there for auDA is to learn from history.

  • December 13, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    This shows once again auDA is not acting in the interests of of Australia or of the paying domain name registrants.

    Neustar Inc. USA  is a foreign owned stock market listed company whose main goal is their own PROFITS…..

    Over the last 15 years they have never offered customer registrant  benefits comparable with other world registrars.

    How about?

    Security? Why not offer Free SSL for All domain name registrants.

    What is the current backup plan if it is compromised today. The auDA CEO said there was none at the recent AGM!

    Lower Wholesale pricing? Did Ausregistry make $10 Million last year from Australian registration fees and did those profits go offshore to the USA?

    Ausregistry published a vast amount of false material regarding the need for another .au extension.. why because they want to run it and they want the extra profits… They want to sell another 3 million Australian domain names they said!

    No competition for tendering means No globally competitive innovation and “No Best Practice”.

    The new board and new auDA CEO have a lot of questions to answer since it was announced at the auDA AGM the tender for registry would be put out. 

    Animal farm here we are.   Disgraceful.

    Where is the Department of Communications and ACCC? Asleep still and letting auDA continue to do what it wants?

    This is NOT  in the best interests of or for the benefit of Australia.


  • December 13, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    auDA AGM Minutes
    December 13, 2016 by Ned O’Meara
    Ned recorded the response from the CEO regarding direct registrations; @4min 19sec
    Voice recording stipulates – “quote”
    NED – if there is going to be direct registrations surely that would have to be in place first before you can go out for a registry tender?
    CEO – Absolutely. It would be folly for us to go to market on that particular issue if we do not have any clarity where the policy sits.

    The published Notes – auDA Annual General Meeting
    Page 8.
    NED – Will the implementation of direct registrations impact on the time frame of the Registry Contract Tender? And, – Will the direct registrations need to be implemented before the tender?
    CEO – We would need to clarify on the policy settings for direct registration first.

    Clarity must of came quick to the CEO 

  • December 13, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    The new CEO Cameron Boardman has just made a major error.

    Time for the ACCC,ASIC and government to step in.

    Mr. Boardman needs to stop this folly.It is shameful and anti comptetitive behaviour. Is he no different to the recently sacked CEO?


    • December 14, 2016 at 10:55 am

      @John B – this writing style seems eerily familiar to another poster on our blog.

Comments are closed.