The Consultation Model Working Group released the following statement today:
Dear auDA members,
We are writing to you on behalf of auDA’s Consultation Model Working Group (CMWG) to let you know about an upcoming chance to have your say in the future of auDA. The CMWG is comprised of auDA members and stakeholders from the Australian internet community who were convened in May to define and oversee the process of consultation with the auDA membership and wider Australian community.
As you are no doubt aware, in March the Department of Communications and Arts handed down a review of auDA, which included 29 recommendations and a new set of Terms of Endorsement to be implemented within 24 months.
The review found auDA’s current membership model does not fully reflect Australia’s internet community and was contributing to ongoing organisational instability.
auDA welcomed the Federal Government’s review and has spent the past months, in consultation with the CMWG and with legal advice from Ashurst, developing a new membership and governance model that will not only meet government’s demands but also satisfy the expectations of existing members.
A new refreshed membership model and the required changes to the constitution will be put to members at the upcoming General Meeting on September 27th.
We are now at a point, where we’d like to present a draft model that we believe improves stakeholder engagement and delivers organisational stability. Consultation on what this model should look like is not over – we’re keen to hear what members think and how we can build on this draft.
We will soon make this draft model available for consideration, and we’d invite you to join an online forum where CEO Cameron Boardman, Chairman Chris Leptos, barrister Tony Lang and law firm Ashurst, will be available to answer your questions about the model and hear your ideas on what you want from auDA.
SAVE THE DATE: Wednesday, 29 August 2018 4pm to 7pm AEST
Register for the webinar here
Given the realities of the review’s timeframe we are operating on a very tight deadline. We apologise for the short notice of the meeting. We encourage you to participate so that you can understand why auDA is changing, how it might impact you and to help shape the future direction of auDA.
We also take this opportunity to let you know that we have a dedicated forum for consultation with the CMWG – cmwg.com.au.
We look forward to hearing from you.
At the heart of the controversy surrounding auDA is the level of influence previously exercised by the so-called ‘domainers’ – people who buy and sell domain names, often extracting large windfall profits by hoarding unique names that subsequently command a premium. The communications department has highlighted the risk of ‘capture’ by vested interests as one of its key concerns about the current governance structure. The fundamental question here is should auDA operate on behalf of all the owners of domain names and the broader Internet user community, or is it merely there to represent the interests of a small inner circle?
Hi Laurie, you wrote:
”The fundamental question here is should auDA operate on behalf of all the owners of domain names and the broader Internet user community, or is it merely there to represent the interests of a small inner circle?”
My answer to this question is that auDA operate in accord with the law including corporations, competition and consumer law.
As far as I’m aware, domain name traders operate – and have done so for many years – in primary (issue) and secondary (after) domain name markets for many years in accordance with existing auDA policy and competition and consumer laws. If they haven’t, auDA and other regulators have intervened.
Disclosure: I’m not a domain name trader.
Laurie,
First of all, I hope you understand the irony of you stating that “domainers” don’t exist, on a website called Domainer?
Just because domainers have made a few mistakes and have faced a few setbacks this week, doesn’t give cause for you to put the boot in and proclaim that domainers “don’t exist” with your “so-called” comment.
I have yet to see anyone back you up publicly when you spew this tripe, so your constant hate-speech against the domainer community seems to show you’re on your own with these thoughts.
In fact, auDA and the PRP are moments away from publicly acknowledging domainers and domain investors don’t only exist, but have a very important role to play in the future of the Australian domain name space.
I can’t fathom how you think the way you do about domainers and/or domain name investors in this day and age, but in any case, it’s now time for you to realign your thoughts with reality.
At no point has the communications department inferred that domainers or domain investors have “captured” anything. So you need to be careful with your propaganda spin in this regard. It’s offensive.
Your fundamental question is not fundamental at all. auDA should operate FOR the broader community, FOR Registrars, FOR resellers, FOR domain investors, FOR everyone involved in the space, without exclusion.
Every country in the world acknowledges domainers and domain name investors, but before 2007, Australia was quite ignorant in regards to how important they are in creating the “value” of what a domain name is worth.
WE are responsible for CPA deciding CPA.com.au was WORTH paying $50,000 for, and Broker.com.au was worth paying $100,000 for, this month.
These sales were END-USERS buying these domains on a public drop-catching platform, proving that anyone can buy a domain name in a fair system that is working perfectly. Not just domainers.
As with many other minority groups who have been wrongly cast aside in the past, it’s time you acknowledged that domain name investors don’t only exist, but are extremely important to the Australian domain name space. Just like auDA and the PRP are doing as we speak.
One more FYI… The term “hoarders” is also highly offensive and a personal attack on a legitimate community.
If you don’t want the domainer community personally attacking you with name-calling, I suggest you stop doing this yourself.
Hey Robert
Where did I say domainers don’t exist? “So-called” in common usage simply notes the fact that this is the term used to describe people who buy and sell domain names. But, as it happens, outside of the industry I doubt too many people would know the term.
All I am doing is pointing out that there is a perception auDA has been subject to a high level of influence by a minority group in the past. The risk of board “capture” is a key finding of the DoCA report and one of the main reasons why the Government has insisted on governance reform.
I’m sorry if the term “hoard” offends anyone but that is what happens when people buy a domain name and don’t intend to use it. This is the Oxford Dictionary definition: “a stockpile of something hidden away for future use”.
My main concern is that some people seem to see auDA as a kind of trade union for domainers. auDA’s role is to oversee the allocation of domain names under a government mandate that requires it to act on behalf of all domain name owners and the broad Internet user community.
I have not used “hate speech”. I think that’s a bit of an over-reaction. One of the saddest aspects of this current controversy is that people are being personally attacked for merely exercising their right to comment.
If domainers have a bad name it is because of the distruptive efforts of a small group claiming to act on their behalf. The sooner we proceeed with a balanced reform of auDA and all get on with whatever it is we each do the better IMO.
Cheers
/LP
Name those “Domainers” who during the past 18 years have captured the Board of auDA?
Everyone who registers any .au domain name does so in their own interest (personal / commercial.) But, it is not acceptable to discriminate against Australian Registrants whose interest in the .au namespace was formed by the Regulators own hand.
On the facts themselves, domainers have been underrepresented on the Board for over 18 years, only one or two ‘domainers’ were Directors of auDA and out of those, none went full term, and only one was Elected by members.
Currently, the auDA Board is composed of NO elected Demand Class Directors, the entire Demand Class membership is underrepresented by voting members. In fact, as recent as last year, only 1 Demand class Elected Director was on the Board for months until, the Board appointed casual replacements.
And finally, my only advice to those seeking to undermine or discriminate against the largest industry shareholder is this; “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” Domain investors are a product of auDA policy, reflective of global economic practices that emerged out of establishing and maintaining an entrepreneurial transaction platform beyond the Registrar.
“… Domain investors are a product of auDA policy, reflective of global economic practices that emerged out of establishing and maintaining an entrepreneurial transaction platform beyond the Registrar.“
Furthermore and importantly, this auDA policy is reflective of National Competition Policy <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Competition_Policy_(Australia)> and National micro-economic reforms <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomic_reform> – both compelling, if not over-riding considerations then and now.
As a member of auDA’s first two Panel, I and a small number of other members argued the case for price competition in primary (issue) and secondary (aftermarket) domain name markets, eg auction of prohibited “generic” domain name rights. See my submission to the auDA 2007 Panel (https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/sub-johnston2.pdf) for some history.
I was reflecting and continuing my 1980s and 1990s micro-economic reform work at a Federal Government level, in relation to financial markets, telecommunications, radio-frequency spectrum management, airport leasing, higher education, social welfare delivery, labour market programs, etc.