auDA Internal Review FAIL – auDA dig an even deeper hole for themselves.

auDA have replied that their Internal Reviewer agrees with their initial complaint dismissal (as we wrote about in Part 2), but I believe they have dug an even deeper hole for themselves now.

You can read the official Internal Review dismissal by auDA here.

Do you remember in my initial auDA Complaint, where, after I told Anthony Peake at Drop.com.au that I would not agree to their silly terms (which were basically that I would not publicly talk “negatively” about Drop.com.au), he told me that he “wasn’t sure if I was banned or not” and “I have to make a phone call”…. Well, I had a gut-feeling that the “phone call” was to someone at auDA. And this call to auDA was made BEFORE the domain actually dropped. And after this phone call, I was not issued the Superannuation.com.au domain name.

auDA have now basically admitted that a phone call to them WAS made, after I had WON the auction for the Superannuation.com.au domain name, but before the domain had actually dropped.

Look at auDA’s response to this:

“In your application for review you claim that the registrar contacted auDA on 6 June 2024 and auDA gave a “green light” to the action taken by the registrar in this matter. In response to this claim I note that:

auDA encourages any registrar or member of the public to contact auDA if they require assistance with understanding and applying the .au Licensing Rules. This is a confidential process, and communications are not made public.”

Notice how they didn’t deny it?

Notice how they have just basically admitted a phone call to them happened, but that “this is confidential and NOT made public“.

I believe Steph Viljoen from auDA may have been the person who received the call from Anthony Peake at the end of the auction, after I had successfully won the domain name. (If this is not the case, I request auDA please reply to me the name of the person who DID receive the phone call at this time.) I would love to know what was spoken about on that phone call, and if a “green light” had been given to delete my winning bid and NOT allow me to register the domain name?

I wonder if someone at auDA allowed (and possibly colluded?) with this Registrar (on this phone call) to prevent me as an “eligible person” from registering the Superannuation.com.au domain name?

I am not saying this happened, but I am going to request the External Reviewer to look into this so I can put this question to rest.

It’s interesting to note, that the Internal Reviewer who has just (wrongly) agreed with the Initial Complaint Dismissal, is Barbara Schade (auDA Senior Compliance Policy Officer) who either works alongside, or directly for Steph Viljoen at auDA. (If this is not the case, I request auDA contact me to update this).

As I prepare to request an External Review of auDA’s decision, I’d like to point out a few worrying things that every Domain Investor and every Australian business who owns a domain name, should concern themselves about…

Point One: the Internal Reviewer states:

“The registrar’s decision as to which party it entered into a contract with for the domain name licence was also made in a commercial context, and is not subject to the .au Licensing Rules or this review.”

My Response:

This is irrelevant, the domain was placed into my company name and ownership and that IS subject to the .au Licensing Rules. My Registrant ownership was not allowed to be changed without my permission.

Point Two: the Internal Reviewer states:

“I understand that there was a period of two hours between the end of the auction and the time the domain name was due to drop from the registry and become available for registration.

The registrar advises that after the end of the auction and prior to the domain name dropping, it contacted and reached agreement with [the second bidder] on the purchase of the domain name.

The registrar confirms that it erred in not updating its own database before the domain name dropped. The registrar’s database continued to reflect the details of the highest auction bid rather the contracting party, which led to the domain name being registered in the name of Assets Australia Pty Ltd, rather than in the name of the contracted registrant, [the second bidder]. Registrar error following the auction also resulted in an incorrect invoice being issued to Assets Australia Pty Ltd.

My Response:

This Internal Reviewer just confirmed Drop.com.au phoned the second-bidder (after phoning auDA), the “runner up”, and basically “made a deal” and “invented” a runner-up auction bid amount out of thin-air that the second bidder would pay, so that I would not be awarded the domain name.

But, as the Internal Review also admitted, the domain name was successfully registered to my company, THE WINNING COMPANY of the auction, and the .au Licensing Rules CLEARLY STATE only a “Registrant” may request a change of ownership once they own a domain name. It doesn’t matter if a Registrar “mistake” occurred or not. Once I was made the owner of the domain name, Drop.com.au were not allowed to change my ownership, and auDA know this, yet they invented a sentence to suggest it is okay, when it is NOT. And they now clearly continue to cling to the hope that their invented sentence and auDA staff member’s personal opinions will be obeyed, even though it doesn’t exist in the .au Licensing Rules.

Point Three: the Internal Review states:

This auDA Internal Reviewer has invented a personal opinion and is now trying to pass it off as fact in the .au Licensing Rules!

She states, “Section 2.18.3 of .au Licensing Rules refers specifically to circumstances in which, as a result of a genuine error made in good faith by a registrar, a domain name licence is incorrectly registered by the registrar to the wrong party.”

My Response:

Where does the sentence “result of a genuine error made in good faith by a registrar” exist in the .au Licensing Rules? … It doesn’t! She just invented it.

Point Four: the Internal Review states:

What’s worse for the Internal Reviewer is, she then admits Drop.com.au did “made the error”:

“As the registrar failed to make the change to its own database in time, a correction of the registrant information was made to give effect to the agreement that had been reached between the registrar and [the second bidder]”.

My Response:

We all know that the .au Licensing Rules DON’T allow a Registrar to correct the Registrant Information without the Registrant’s consent. And I was not consulted in this regard. auDA can keep pretending that the Registrar was allowed to do this, but they were NOT.

Point Five: the Internal Review states:

The Internal Reviewer then ADMITS IN WRITING that the initial Complaint Response writer DID invent the sentence from his own personal opinion “A registrar may make a correction to the registrant information in some circumstances” out of thin air…

She wrote:

“Did auDA’s decision include incorrect information about the .au Licensing Rules that would invalidate the decision?

auDA’s letter of 18 June 2024 states that a registrar may make a correction to the registrant information in some circumstances. This statement is presented as the view of the letter writer, and I believe it is an accurate overview of section 2.18.3 of the .au Licensing Rules. It does not purport to be a quote from the .au Licensing Rules.”

My Response:

This couldn’t be clearer.

Read that again.

The auDA Internal Reviewer just stated, “This statement (“A registrar may make a correction to the registrant information in some circumstances“) is presented as the view of the letter writer“.

In layman’s terms, this means, the Initial Complaint writer at auDA had a personal opinion, that I believe is WRONG, that was made up out of thin air, and does not obey the .au Licensing Rules. And now the Internal Reviewer has doubled-down on this “made-up” sentence and incorrect interpretation of the .au Licensing Rules, and stated she agrees with the personal made-up opinion.

In response to this wrongful Internal Review by auDA, I believe they have now dug an even deeper hole for themselves.

Mistakes can be made, but I think auDA should have realised this by now, instead of doubling down on their mistake.

I hope justice can prevail.

I am now requesting an External Review and will provide all of the above information to the External Reviewer.

Please leave this field empty

When is the next Assets Show?

Sign up to receive new episodes of The Assets Show in your inbox.

We don’t spam!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.