auda delete pd policy domain name

auDA target generic domain name investor

Today, a domain name investor called Mr Modesto lost dozens of generic domain names when auDA placed most (possibly all?) of his entire portfolio onto the public domain name auction platforms.

Domainer is lead to believe it had taken him over a decade to acquire some of these highly sort after generic domain names, at great expense.

The domains auDA confiscated from him and released to the public today included;

  • below.com.au
  • swerve.com.au
  • beached.com.au
  • domainx.com.au
  • edesign.com.au
  • staffed.com.au
  • gymclass.com.au
  • welfare.com.au
  • humanoid.com.au
  • keepcalm.com.au
  • migrated.com.au
  • timebomb.com.au
  • escooters.com.au
  • mesmerise.com.au
  • loungebar.com.au
  • rockstars.com.au
  • persistent.com.au
  • remotework.com.au
  • fuelled.com.au
  • petgear.com.au
  • runaway.com.au
  • toyzone.com.au
  • sirloin.com.au
  • 30th.com.au
  • 40th.com.au
  • 50th.com.au
  • 60th.com.au

You don’t get any more generic than this!

I personally own escooter.com.au and would have been willing to offer him at least $5000 to acquire his escooters.com.au domain name (as my side-hustle business grows, for brand protection purposes, and if it hadn’t appeared on the drops today!).

How much money has auDA caused Mr Modesto to lose today, and in years to come (as domain names become more valuable every year), because of their actions?

Was this one single person at auDA who made this decision? Or a joint decision?

What is the reasoning behind deleting someone’s entire portfolio of domain names? His ABN associated with owning the domain names appears to still be valid.

But… wait until you read this…

auDA Policy Deleted Mr Modesto’s OWN SURNAME today!

That’s right…

Today, auDA also placed Mr Modesto’s domain name “Modesto.com.au” (his own surname) into Policy Delete.

On checking the WHOIS a few minutes after the drops today, it appears Mr Modesto has just had to buy back his own domain name (surname). And to the exact same entity too.

To me, it looks as though they just placed his entire portfolio of generic domain names into Policy Delete without any sort of due diligence on individual names. Am I wrong?

Perhaps a representative from auDA, or Mr Modesto himself, can take the time to write to Domainer and explain what happened today?

When is the next Assets Show?

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

We don’t spam!

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neddy

This is so disappointing on many levels.

Firstly, I feel very sorry for the registrant. He must be absolutely gutted that something like this can happen in Australia. In what other major ccTLD space in the world would something like this occur?

In my opinion, auDA should be there to help and educate registrants that may not comply with whatever policy or licensing rules are currently in existence (which can be confusing for even the most experienced of us). Their role should not be to “punish” those that don’t deserve it. I have written about this before on Domainer.

That said, domain investors also need to also help themselves.

1. Registrants should never lose domains at auDA’s “first base”. There are two levels of appeal.

2. If you receive a decision that seeks to delete your domains, get advice from people in the industry before trying to fix the problem yourself. Unfortunately, sometimes if you think you are giving the right answer to the auDA Compliance team, you are not. On the contrary, you are almost sealing your fate. (Once again, it shouldn’t be this way).

3. Keep your domains with a registrar that will “have your back” when you need it. Particularly someone who knows how auDA operates, and who can advise you as to the best courses of action. I am an experienced domain investor who knows how policy works, but Anthony at Drop.com.au knows much more than me! And he is always willing to go the extra mile to help registrants keep their domains.

Ned

Like
7 people like this.
Snoopy

Well said Ned, stories of constant deletion attempts (which are often overruled when people appeal) are an extreme concern.

auDA should be there to assist registrants, it shouldn’t be this constant attempt to catch people out.

Like
4 people like this.
Mary

Will these be deleted by auDA in the same way they deleted the persons name Modesto.com.au?

Boardman.com.au ex auDA CEO
Leptos.com.au. ex auDA Chair
PaulFletcher.com.au current Minister
ScottMorrison.com.au current PM
etc.

Like
5 people like this.
Charles

Mary did you have a Little.com.au Lamb.com.au

Like
Anonymous likes this.
Garth

Ridiculous. This is why I and many others don’t invest in .au anymore. It’s like walking through a minefield. auDA needs a reality check.

Like
Anonymous likes this.
Mark

[ Admin Note: Please use one alias when you post. Either Mark, TJ, Jon or Fabian. ]

No it’s not. Names should correspond to entity or TM names or be used for monetisation or have an otherwise close and substantial connection to the registrant. The criteria are very broad, but there will always be some who don’t stay within the rules.

We don’t even know whether auDA deleted these names. It may have been an error at the registrant’s end, perhaps they asked for all names to be deleted and then realised they wanted to keep the surname one so re registered it. I don’t find any of the names in the list appealing at all and would’ve deleted them all myself.

My 2 cents

Mark

Oh, but unless we can see what the comments or representations were from the previous registrant it is still not as clear cut as you might think. Very rare. I still disagree about the names deleted but each to their own.

Snoopy

What is your connection with auDA Mark?

Like
4 people like this.
Mark

Admin Note: Please use one alias when you post. Either Mark, TJ, Jon or Fabian.

What is your connection to .com.au Snoopy?

Like
4 people like this.
Grey Goose

Admin Note: Please use one alias when you post. Either Grey Goose, Jack, Mike etc.

GG.com.au will go for $10k+ today

Like
3 people like this.
Blue Horse Shoe

Funny how everyone misses the elephant in the room, the people stopping change are the Department. .au needs to get with the times. auDA cant change the rules, it comes down to the faceless men and women in the Department who hold onto the way things were in 2002, when champagne, international trips and 6 star hotels were the norm at auDA. None of them have even owned a .au domain name which makes it worse.

Like
5 people like this.
Mark

[ Admin Note: Please use one alias when you post. Either Mark, TJ, Jon or Fabian. ]

Do you have any connection to Snoopy?

Like
Anonymous likes this.
Neddy

This old article from DN Trade may send a few shivers down some backs.

At least back in those days one could pick up the phone and speak to someone at auDA – these days it is very hard to do so.

Like
3 people like this.