For more than 25 years, Australian Domain Investors have treated “.com.au” and “.au” names as legitimate business assets. Many Domain Investors started building portfolios in the early 2000s, around the time auDA was established and the rules were liberalised to allow more flexible ownership, including generic and descriptive names. Holding domains for future use, resale, or monetisation through pay-per-click (PPC) advertising has long been part of that picture.
Now, auDA’s Policy Advisory Panel has released its Draft Report as part of the 2025–2026 Licensing Rules Review. On the surface, the headline recommendation is reassuring: domain monetisation should remain permitted in ‘.com.au’, ‘.net.au’, and ‘.au’ direct. But the real risk lies in the detail — specifically how allocation rules could be tightened in ways that make everyday monetised use much harder.
The Current Reality for ‘.com.au’ and ‘.au’
Under today’s rules, monetisation (selling, or holding a domain to generate revenue, including through advertising) is allowed in the main commercial namespaces as long as you meet the eligibility and allocation requirements.
Bruce Tonkin, auDA’s CEO, recently shared usage data in response to a direct investor query:
- 43% of .com.au names and 59% of .au names currently have “no content.”
- Another 20–23% fall into “limited content” (parked-style) categories.
These figures matter. A large portion of the namespace is held without a fully developed website. For a namespace like .au direct (only about four years old, compared with com.au’s 40-year history), higher rates of undeveloped or minimally active names are exactly what you would expect. Many of these are legitimately parked or monetised while owners wait for the right project, buyer, or opportunity.
auDA’s own May 2026 registry statistics reinforce the picture: total ‘.au’ names under management sit at around 4.37 million, with ‘.au’ direct continuing to grow while some legacy options show softness.
The Real Risk in the Draft Report
The Draft Report floats three options for allocation rules in ‘.com.au’ and ‘.net.au’. The most concerning for Domain Investors is the possibility of deleting or narrowing the flexible “service” pathway in Rule 2.4.4(2)(f). This is the route many PPC, parking, referral, and sale-lander pages use to satisfy allocation requirements when the name doesn’t perfectly match a company or personal name.
If that pathway is removed or heavily restricted, it could effectively make a large number of monetised domains non-compliant — achieving by the back door what the report’s headline recommendation says should not happen.
Pay-per-click advertising is not some fringe activity. It is explicitly recognised as a Class 35 service under the WIPO Nice Classification (basic number 350113). IP Australia confirms the same structure: Class 35 covers advertising and related commercial services. There are already ‘.com.au’ domains registered under Class 35 trademarks specifically for PPC-related services.
Major auDA-accredited registrars actively promote and profit from these models. GoDaddy’s CashParking, Crazy Domains’ PPC and parked-domain services, and platforms like Above.com (who run the one and only Australian premium domain name drop catching monopoly, Drop.com.au, privately) openly market monetisation as a legitimate way to earn revenue from unused names. This has been part of ‘.au’ commerce for decades.
The Scale and the Economics
Investor analysis tied to the current review puts the number of PPC-monetised ‘.com.au’, ‘.net.au’, and ‘.au’ names at over 500,000 as of mid-2026. These pages deliver advertising reach and market awareness for tens of thousands of businesses.
Over 25 years, auDA, accredited registrars, the registry operator, and the auDA Foundation have directly or indirectly benefited by at least $100 million from the registration and renewal fees generated by these monetised domains. Registrants who earn revenue from advertising often use it to cover renewals, keeping more names active in the system.
If policy changes make hundreds of thousands of these names harder to hold or monetise, the effects are predictable:
- auDA loses registration and renewal revenue.
- The registry operator sees lower volumes.
- Registrars lose income from PPC programs, parking services, aftermarket activity, email, and website-builder upsells — plus a drop in “domains under management” figures.
- The Commonwealth loses GST.
- Advertisers lose a cost-effective channel.
- Consumers lose access to advertising-supported information and niche services.
There is no clear public benefit to making 500,000+ existing monetised names unviable.
Historical Context and Market Evidence
This is not the first time restrictive ideas have surfaced. In 2019, during an earlier policy review, proposals emerged that would have strengthened bans on registration for resale and limited monetisation. The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) pushed back hard in a detailed submission, arguing there was no solid evidence of harm, that investors provide liquidity, and that auDA itself benefits from the activity. Many of the more extreme suggestions were not adopted.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has also weighed in on the current review, supporting a lighter-touch approach to allocation rules. It notes that consumer trust does not depend on highly prescriptive eligibility tests and points to the success of simpler models like ‘.au’ direct.
Market trends reinforce the point. While global ‘.com’ has scaled to massive numbers under relatively open rules, ‘.au’ direct (with its simpler Australian Presence requirement and fewer allocation hurdles) is growing faster than some legacy commercial namespaces. If stricter allocation or monetisation limits are introduced now, the risk is that .’com.au’ and ‘.au’ become less attractive for the very activity that has helped sustain the namespace.
What This Means for Long-Time Domain Investors
If you have held ‘.com.au’ or ‘.au’ portfolios since the early days of auDA, you built them under rules that treated legitimate monetisation in commercial namespaces as acceptable. Many of those holdings sit in the “no content” or “limited content” categories Bruce Tonkin described — not because they are abandoned, but because they are held for future use, resale, or monetisation.
Changes that narrow the “service” allocation pathway or increase pressure on monetised names would create real uncertainty:
- Difficulty justifying or renewing names that have been compliant for years.
- Reduced liquidity in the aftermarket.
- Devaluation of generic, descriptive, or keyword-rich names that rely on flexible allocation.
- Higher compliance costs for portfolio holders.
auDA’s own data shows this activity is widespread. The 2019 ICA submission and the current ACCI submission both emphasise that investors and businesses provide value — liquidity, choice, and revenue that flows back into the system. Restricting it now would be inconsistent with that history.
Practical Steps for Domain Investors
The current consultation on the Draft Report is the time to make your voice heard. The evidence is clear: monetisation via PPC and related models is a legitimate, long-standing part of the .au ecosystem. It has generated substantial value for registrants, registrars, and auDA itself. Any changes should target genuine abuse — not ordinary commercial use that has operated within the rules for over 25 years.
Domain investing is not new. The rules that allowed it helped build the namespace we have today. Long-time holders deserve policy that is evidence-based, proportionate, and consistent with the flexibility that has existed since auDA’s early years.
(Consultation details and submission links are available on the auDA website under the Licensing Rules Review section. Key supporting documents include the 2019 ICA submission, the ACCI submission, and auDA’s own registry statistics and usage data.)
Where are we up to with all of this?
The Draft Report will be published on the auDA website in the coming months. The Panel will then open a second round of public consultation to seek feedback on its Draft Report.
After this second round of consultation closes, the Panel will review submissions and finalise its recommendations. It will then provide a report with finalised recommendations for potential updates to the .au Licensing Rules to the auDA Board by mid-2026.
If you’re a Domain Investor and you haven’t yet made your voice heard. Now is the time.


GoDaddy is the world’s biggest domain name Registrar and an auDA registrar
Just look at https://www.godaddy.com/en-au/domains/cashparking
The panel and auDA clearly have not thought the proposal through to remove PPC as an eligibility for .au Domains. They don’t know what they are talking about again.
If you read the anti PPC submissions they are from people who want to stop competition. An example is the 3 submissions about “LOCKSMITHS”. They want auDA to only let THEM register “Locksmith” domain names and noone else . They want Locksmiths.com.au domain name to lose their eligibility so THEY can get the generic Locksmiths.com.au domain name.
Yet on their own website they admit anyone can call themselves a “locksmith” or advertise locksmiths etc
” https://masterlocksmiths.com.au Locksmith’ is not a protected title in Australia or New Zealand, and un-trained, un-qualified individuals calling themselves locksmiths operate in both countries”
The reason is that association tries to slander anyone who is not paying them to be their member or advertise with them in their Master Locksmiths online directory.
They want all the “locksmith” keyword domains for themselves! LOL
__
Hi to the ACCC for Anti Competitive Behaviour!
___
There is a Hilarious submission example also from PIZZAHQ.com.au who wants to ban PPC Monetisation. Of course they wanted the PIZZA.com.au Pizzas.com.au domains for themselves.
Look closely at that own submission and their own PizzaHQ.com.au domain name, Whois, eligibility failures etc…LOL
Their own eligibility is in tatters because their own registrant Eligibility finished 9 years ago when their Registrant Abn was cancelled in 2017!
SO they are an ineligible .com.au registrant themselves for 9 years and they proclaim to know and follow auDA policy?
People in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones’
Registrant:
Registrant ID: ABN 34128493064. CANCELLED in 2017
Eligibility Type: Sole Trader
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2026-06-24T00:05:15Z <<<
WHOIS Search Result
WHOIS Search Results
Domain Name: pizzahq.com.au
Registry Domain ID: 251499606fa14bfd9a692ae0360a357e-AU
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.auda.org.au
Registrar URL: https://www.godaddy.com/en-au/contact-us
Last Modified: 2026-06-23T08:06:32Z
Registrar Name: GoDaddy.com LLC trading as GoDaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4805058800
Reseller Name:
Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://identitydigital.au/whois-status-codes#clientDeleteProhibited
Status: serverRenewProhibited https://identitydigital.au/whois-status-codes#serverRenewProhibited
Status Reason: Not Currently Eligible For Renewal
Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://identitydigital.au/whois-status-codes#clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant Contact ID: 9bb7f37ff0144652bc07e1086bda43d3-AU
Registrant Contact Name:
Registrant Contact Email:
Tech Contact ID: ef5c0144524941449ea3eef0860dc48f-AU
Tech Contact Name:
Tech Contact Email: deliveritsoftware@gmail.com
Name Server: art.ns.cloudflare.com
Name Server: jasmine.ns.cloudflare.com
DNSSEC: unsigned
Registrant:
Registrant ID: ABN 34128493064
Eligibility Type: Sole Trader
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2026-06-24T00:05:15Z <<<
The Biggest Risk in the 2026 auDA Rules Review Isn’t What Most People Think
As someone who has spent more than 25 years in the domain name industry as both an investor & broker, I fully agree with the concerns raised by Rob in this article.
If you’re a domain investor, portfolio owner, broker, registrar, or operate monetised domains, this should concern you.
The Draft Report discusses future allocation rules for .com.au & .net.au.
Buried within the discussion is a potentially significant issue.
The report raises the possibility of deleting or substantially narrowing the flexible “service” pathway contained within Rule 2.4.4(2)(f).
For many domain investors, that rule is critical.
Why?
Because it allows legitimate Australian domain names to satisfy allocation requirements through:
• Pay-per-click advertising
• Domain parking
• Lead generation
• Referral services
• Domain sales landers
• Traffic monetisation
If this pathway were removed or heavily restricted, thousands of domains could potentially become non-compliant overnight.
Let’s be clear.
Pay-per-click advertising is not some obscure loophole.
It is a recognised commercial service.
Under the WIPO Nice Classification system, PPC advertising falls within Class 35, & IP Australia follows the same framework.
This isn’t a new concept.
It’s an established business model that has been part of the Australian domain ecosystem for decades.
Many of the industry’s largest players actively support & profit from these activities.
Registrars & platforms have built businesses around parked domains, PPC advertising, traffic monetisation, domain sales landers & referral services.
These activities generate revenue for registrars, monetisation platforms, investors & the wider domain industry.
So the question becomes:
If these activities have been accepted for decades…
If they’re recognised under international trademark classifications…
If registrars actively promote them…
Why would we consider removing the very rule that allows them to exist?
I’m all for improving the .au namespace & reducing abuse.
But we should be careful not to unintentionally damage a legitimate & long-established sector of Australia’s domain name industry.
If Rule 2.4.4(2)(f) is weakened or removed, the consequences could be far greater than many people realise.
What are your thoughts?
Should PPC, parking, referral & domain sales landers continue to qualify as legitimate services under .com.au allocation rules?
Keen to hear views from domain investors, registrars, brokers & business owners.
imagine the class action against auda if domainers had their over 500,000 monetised domain names collectively policy deleted?! all because a small handful of jealous people complained they missed out on buying domain names 30 years ago. 🤔
Thank you for the info. For people like me who hold domains but are fairly removed from anything to do with AuDA, can you include a simple link or email that you would recommend people follow to make their case or voice heard please?
https://www.auda.org.au/public-impact/have-your-say/policy-panels/au-licensing-rules-review-2025/
Have your say to auDA here – https://www.auda.org.au/public-impact/have-your-say/policy-panels/au-licensing-rules-review-2025/
DANGER auDA Policy “review” Tricks Exposed AGAIN!
No domain namespace stops PPC and Monetisation. So why is auDA & Panel and Review Papers going backwards again on this already settled issue?
So by stealth in their HIDDEN AGENDA CLAUSE deletion what auDA and this Panel are proposing is also to take away auDAs own Registrars rights like Above, Trellian, Godaddy and more from making money from PPC Monetisation! Wake Up auDA Registrars!
You lose PPC, MONETISATION you lose domain registration renewal fees, you lose PPC income, you lose stock, company, asset, investor, value.
This will BAN .com.au and .net.au registration and renewals using the PPC Monetisation “SERVICE”.
Specifically auDA’s own Registrars like Trellian Above/ Drop etc use THEIR CLAUSE such as this on their PPC monetised .com.au, .net.au and direct .au domain names
“Note: accountants is the name of the domain registrant’s SERVICE that provides links to advertisements for services, goods, events or activities that may be of interest to you, based on the search term “accountants”
https://www.Accountants.com.au
https://www.above.com/marketplace/accountants.com.au
auDA Registrars Trellian, Above, Drop, GoDaddy etc all MAKE MONEY from these PPC, Monetised .com.au and .net.au direct .au They run the advertising on the sites and they take a % of the PPC Monetisation income.
Why are the Registrars standing by and doing nothing?
A spokesperson from auDA has reached out to us and provided us with some great information:
She says:
I am contacting you in response to your recent article on the review of the .au Licensing Rules.
The Policy Advisory Panel has published its draft report and commenced consultation: https://www.auda.org.au/consultations/consultation-on-au-licensing-rules-review-draft-report/
Interested parties can provide their feedback via the consultation page, or by attending one of the in-person workshops:
Links to register for the in-person sessions can be found on the consultation page.
Online submissions can be made via the consultation page until 10 July 2026.
so again Auda is attacking legitimate Registrrars. Advertisers and Domain Name Registrants rights?
Nothing new!
The craziest thing is they will allow PPC in direct .au still but with this sneaky plan Fup all the .com.au .net.au rules again?
It makes No Sense
AUda will Allow PPC for direct .au and Not allow PPC for .com.au net.au via their tricky eligibility SERVICE deletion clauses?
About 2/3 of all .com.au and .net.au names registered are actually registered under category (f)
This is because the complex eligibility and allocation criteria are already very hard to navigate for business.
Most businesses cannot get a domain name corresponding to their business name, or it is impractical to do so.
Let’s lay out a hyperthetical story of a dystopian domain name nightmare.
A new business (for example) Bob’s Automotive Alice Springs cannot register BobsAutomotive.com.au because it belongs to another business. It is impractical for him to run a website and emails from BobsAutomotiveAliceSprings.com.au because it’s too long.
Bob like every other business owner (has done / does) chooses to register BobsAutoGarage.com.au and BobsAutoRepairs.com.au. Bob wants to use BobsAutoGarage.com.au as his main domain but BobsAutoRepairs.com.au for a letterbox distribution campaign / Google Adsense campaign, so that he can measure the effectiveness of the campaign by the number of inbound visitors being redirected. Bob executes on his plan.
6 months later auDA says Bob is no longer eligible to hold either of the two names name because (f) is no longer a basis for allocation. Bob is told he needs to register a business name or trademark corresponding to each domain name. Bob tries to get the business names with ASIC but is told they are similar to existing business names registered. Bob is in a quandary. He is extremely stressed from the whole situation and has paid consultants more than $1,000 to navigate these complexities and ultimately all he can do is register other business names that he doesn’t need like Bob’s Auto Garage Alice Springs and Bob’s Auto Repairs Alice Springs just to retain a website and marketing setup he has already invested $12,000 in.
Bob now has 3 business names and additional costs each year. His accountant charges him $250 per business name renewal even though the fee to ASIC is $104.
Susan in London manages IP for a large multinational. She wakes one morning to a furious email from her CEO asking why their Australian site is down and the domain name is in a status of pending delete. Tens of thousands of Australian customers are affected. Susan has been on leave and Bridget her junior was waiting on Susan’s return to confirm whether the emails threatening deletion of the domain were legitimate or not. Bridget thought they were fraudulent (as they were proposterous) and those irregular emails had been quarantined. Susan calls her friend at an agency in Sydney for help. Her friend Karen explains they’ve been seeing dozens of corporate clients lose names like this of late, and cites Macquarie Bank losing BusinessBank.com.au as an example.
Karen says she is going to talk to the manager at auDA. Karen tries to call auDA but can’t get through. She is required to leave a message with a call centre worker. 48 hours later she gets a call back from a random auDA employee whose name or position is not even listed on the website, telling her that auDA has been fielding thousands of these complaints this week and they would respond in due course.
Karen decides to speak to her lawyer friend, Jan. Jan is not happy. Over lunch that Saturday, Jan and her associates in Rose Bay decide to instigate a class action against auDA.
The perfect tag team, Karen and Jan spread the word on LinkedIn, and AFR and the Sydney Morning Herald publish damning articles about the whole situation. It only gets worse for auDA from there.
So NINE MEDIA (will lose their JOBS.com.au domain name and about 20,000 more com.au they still own they paid over $15 million for years ago (Fairfax Digital, http://www.F2.com.au etc) and ongoing insanely expensive renewal fees auDA directly has profited from ?
JOBS.com.au was registered and renewed for over 23 years under rules auDA panel proposes to now ban? The “SERVICE” eligibility, PPC, Monetisation, “close substantial connection” etc.
Once again auDA Panel and auDA creates chaos like in 2019 and every 5 or 6 years with crazy confusing often illogical ignorant policy reviews…
The best option is DIrect .au rules now for .com.au and .net.au
.net.au is losing a lot of registrations and renewals now. Its largely useless now unless it’s a premium one word generic which still holds some value.
How insane is it that auDA wants different rules for the same registrant owning the exact same name as both a .com.au and direct. Au
Other countries like CHINA even got rid of stupidity like that years ago.
Same goes for .co and .co.uk. Both have the same policy rules
.co.nz and .nz Both have the same policy rules
Auda is 25 years behind the rest of the world!