Yesterday I wrote the article “auDA ignores market manipulation and their own policy over Superannuation.com.au dispute” (Part 1).
Today I will explain how auDA invented a “Licensing Rule” sentence out of thin air, in a feeble attempt to back up a misinterpreted version of their own auDA Licensing Rules, to hastily and wrongfully dismiss my Superannuation.com.au complaint.
In auDA’s official response to my initial complaint, they most notably wrote:
Take a look at the RED UNDERLINED sentence above.
Here is the link to the Licensing Rules.
There is NO MENTION in the Licensing Rules (or anywhere else for that matter) of the very authoritative sentence they made-up, “A registrar may make a correction to the registrant information in some circumstances“.
auDA literally INVENTED this sentence out of thin air.
They plucked it from the ether in an attempt to “make their case”.
They failed.
This means that based on there own policy, the Registrar had NO permission to change information except at the request of the registrant, which was ME.
The domain was rightfully placed into my possession because I rightfully won the domain auction.
Essentially, 2.18.3 in the Licensing Rules could not have been activated unless the registrant had made the request. And I did NOT make that request.
This means that Items 1-6 below their “fictional, made-up sentence” are mute.
However, notice how they also stated (in bold), “the inaccuracy has arisen through a genuine error made in good faith by the registrar“….
Is that supposed to be a joke?
An error made in good faith by Drop.com.au?
Even Blind Freddy can see how what Drop.com.au did to me was done in BAD FAITH, every step of the way.
But wait, there’s more….
According to auDA’s REGISTRAR RULES (https://www.auda.org.au/policy/au-domain-administration-rules-registrar):
2.11.1 The Registrar must not transfer a licence from a Registrant to another Person unless:
3. the transfer request by the Registrant is in writing to the Registrar;
Drop.com.au were NOT allowed to transfer the domain name licence away from my company ownership, after I had successfully won the auction and had the domain rightfully placed in my ownership (admitted by auDA on the WHOIS as at 3:30 GMT on 6 June 2024) WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. According to the auDA Registrar Rules.
Case closed.
The domain name must now be placed back into my possession and Drop.com.au must now REFUND the other bidder $250,000.
Why do I have to do auDA’s job for them, reading their own policies properly?
I think it may be time for a massive staff clean out over at auDA. Get rid of all the people who don’t know what they’re doing, or are maliciously or egregiously going against auDA’s Terms of Endorsement and ruining the .au space for all Australian businesses.
I believe auDA have now spectacularly failed their Terms of Endorsement placed upon them by the Commonwealth Government in November 2021. I also believe they have now ruined the trust and integrity of the entire .au domain name infrastructure.
Ask yourself… WHY would auDA behave in this manner?
According to auDA’s Complaints Process, my next step will be to request an INTERNAL REVIEW of auDA’s wrongful decision of my original complaint.
Let’s hope smarter and honest people at auDA prevail during this next step.
Have a look at domainer.com.au – over there it says the winning bid was $400,000! These guys are more creative than David Copperfield…
I think you mean “Money.com.au” is $400k, Scott. That’s different to this disputed domain Superannuation.com.au(.) I invented those Top Domain Sales list over at that site when i owned it. No one goes there anymore. Trellian/Trillion/Drop.com.au OWN that site now and they have let it die and have wrecked it. You’re in the right place now though buddy 🙂
Right you are… I had ‘Money Pty Ltd’ on the brain!
Who holds auDA to account?
Based on the information presented, it’s pretty clear that nobody is.
Spot-on Joel. It’s high time a lot more people knew about what’s going on over there.
Nobody can hold auDA to account. All government bodies are afraid of auDA.
My confidence in auDA is eroding every day.
auDA have consistently either misinterpreted or simply not known their own policies. I ran into this often when I tried to become a Registrar. Hell, they even tried to hold me to policy documents that were in DRAFT form!
They are a great example of useless, public sector incompetence and I agree a full clean needs to happen there to restore any semblance of trust in this space.
The way Rosemary Sinclair and Steph Viljoen from auDA consistently moth-balled your Registrar application a few years ago, (documented on this very website) when you were one of the most experienced Australian domain name professionals in Australia during that time, (and no doubt still are) by inhibiting competition of a new Registrar and a potential new drop catcher, is reprehensible.
auDA have never approved a new Registrar since 2016. Many capable tech companies and domain professionals have submitted Registrar applications over the past 8 years, and all have been denied.
Rosemary Sinclair auDA CEO has never approved a new Registrar (or Drop Catcher) or promoted competition in the Expired Domain name aftermarket, during her entire time as CEO, ever since she witnessed the Drop Catching monopoly occur when Drop.com.au bought their only competitor in November 2020.
Look at the damage and ruined-trust Australian domain names are facing today.
This will be just one of CEO Rosemary Sinclair’s negative legacies as she gets ready to retire later this year.
auDA have officially failed their Australian Government Terms of Endorsement. I will go into more detail about this next week.
> Ask yourself… WHY would auDA behave in this manner?
In corporate and government there can sometimes be 2 reasons, money and power.
follow the money…
Maybe if we get a Royal Commission into auDA if there’s found to be mismanagement of Australia’s Critical infrastructure, we will find out where the money is and where it has been going?
[…] 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 […]
[…] made an official auDA Complaint, but then auDA “invented a Licensing Rule sentence out of thin air to dismiss” my […]