Back in June I wrote how Drop.com.au deleted my winning bid of $325,000 for the expiring domain name Superannuation.com.au on their auction platform and then plucked a smaller price of $250,000 from nowhere with no rhyme or reason and gave it to an underbidder instead.
Then, once their systems successfully registered the domain name to my company, as the successful winner, they simply confiscated the domain and changed the ownership to the under bidder instead, without my permission.
I made an official auDA Complaint, but then auDA “invented a Licensing Rule sentence out of thin air to dismiss” my complaint.
So then I filed an External Review with auDA.
Although I requested a thorough investigation by the External Review panelist (chosen by auDA, who they also pay directly), it appears auDA only issued her with information in regards to the “Registration Error” that was made by Drop.com.au(,) and not any of my other concerns.
The External Reviewer said she “cannot assess whether Assets Australia has rights of recourse in relation to the matters listed … above, as those are not matters that are able to be considered in this review“. I take this to mean she didn’t consider if my other concerns, such as unfair trading, discrimination or market manipulation had occurred.
She did however admit Drop had “made an administrative error in not updating its own database information” when registering the domain name to my company (as the undisputed public winning bidder), but she felt Drop were “entitled to update the Registry Data and correct the Registrant details“.
However, not only do I think her decision is wrong, I feel she has also contradicted herself in her findings.
First, she says “the Person who was listed in the Registry Data (that is, the data held in the Registry, being the centralised database for the domain names) as the “Registrant” of superannuation.com.au when that domain name dropped was Assets (Australia), and that information was publicly accessible on WHOIS at 1.30 pm on 6 June 2024“.
Well, here, she says clearly that my company was the Registrant at this date and time. Full stop.
But then, worryingly, the External Reviewer says, “As a result of the telephone call with the principal of Assets (Australia) and the removal from the Drop website of the statement that Assets was the successful winner of the auction of the domain name superannuation.com.au, Drop indicated that it would not enter into a Licence Agreement for that domain name with Assets.“
The above simply didn’t happen. As you can read in my initial complaint article, Drop never stated to me on the phone call that they were taking the domain name away from me, all I was told was “I have to go and make a phone call” when I didn’t agree to their silly demands.
But, she already admitted above that Assets Australia WAS successfully registered as the Registrant.
This is why it’s very confusing, and contradictory to see her say next, “Given the finding that Assets (Australia) was not the Registrant (yes I was?!) for the domain name superannuation.com.au, it had no rights under section 2.13 to transfer of the domain name or to object to a transfer occurring not contemplated by section 2.13.“
This doesn’t make any sense.
She also went on to say one of her (the External Reviewer’s) justifications of Drop being allowed to change my Registrant ownership, after the fact, is the Licensing Rules “does not say that a Registrar may not correct Registry Data in other circumstances“…
Huh?
So, because the rules don’t say something, doesn’t mean you can’t do it?
What?
Honestly, from the initial Internal Review and now to this External Review, it feels like people are just choosing the easy way and being careful not to rock the boat and writing as much policy jargon to make it hard to see this is all just their own personal opinions and personal justifications as to whether Drop were allowed to get away with what they did.
At least the External Reviewer admitted auDA’s own Internal Review complaint dismissal was incorrect. The External Reviewer stated auDA’s initial “Internal Review Decision is set aside“. This means to me, as I wrote in my article “auDA invented a Licensing Rule sentence out of thin air to dismiss my complaint”. I wasn’t wrong. The External Reviewer clearly did not agree with auDA’s Internal Review or explanation of the Licensing Rules. Instead, the External Reviewer made a “decision in substitution” of auDA’s Internal Review decision, creating her own interpretation instead.
Now that I’m left more confused and dumbfounded than ever how both the Internal Review and External Review systems can’t even interpret the basic fundamentals of the Licensing Rules, without inventing external interpretations and opinions of their own, let me just remind you that all of the above is only ONE angle of the multitude of ways Drop.com.au have wrongly prohibited me from owning a valuable domain name and, in my opinion, have now caused auDA to break their own Terms of Endorsement with the Australian Government.
Besides this one single External Review decision of “Registrant Registration Error” being explored, (again, wrongly, in my opinion), the fact remains that no one (including auDA) have explored how Drop.com.au:
- “Banned me” from being able to register a domain name, when as an auDA Registrar, this does not form any part of the licensing rules.
- Stopped me (as an eligible person according to the auDA Licensing Rules) from registering a domain name.
- Confiscated a valuable domain name that was already in my possession, according to the auDA Licensing Rules.
- Invented an underbidder price out of thin air ($75,000 discount!) on their auction platform, for no valid reason.
- Manipulated the Expired Domain Marketplace and discriminated against me from registering Superannuation.com.au for no valid reason.
- Continue to run an Expired Domain Name Monopoly with no competition, and no other options presented by auDA. (This has been explained countless times over the past few years).
- Continue to allow “domain tasting” for one or two mysterious companies, as an auDA Accredited Registrar, which, I believe, is anti-competitive and unfair behaviour against every other Australian business who would like to register expired domain names.
Where to now?
Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed reading how to exhaustively complain through the auDA Complaints system, and what to expect, as much as I’ve enjoyed going through it…
Not!
Where to next, indeed . . .
[Find the External Review at the bottom of the page at THIS LINK]