Foxtel have launched their new Australian streaming service at Binge.com.au
The only problem is…
It’s been reported to Domainer by two domain name industry colleagues that;
Foxtel have launched their new streaming service Binge using the Binge.com.au domain.
Just a couple of issues
1) the domain appears to be still in the former registrant’s name; and,
2) that registration itself seems invalid as the ABN expired in 2008.
Getting it into the new owners name is not going to be easy as a change of registrant would be against auDA policy.
Watch this space…
We’ve just checked the ABN for the domain and it’s true. See below that the Registrant’s ABN that owns the domain name has been cancelled.
I wonder how long it’s going to take for someone to make a complaint against this domain name and send it to the Drops?
We’re all watching…
No that’s incorrect.
The transfer can be effected because the ABN belongs to a natural person (ie. a Sole Trader ABN) rather than a non-existent deregistered corporation.
Wrong.
The ABN doesn’t belong to anyone and hasn’t for 12 years. It was cancelled in 2008.
The current listed registrant has no rights to use the ABN and thus had had no eligibility for the name for the last 12 years.. meaning they have no Binge.com.au legal rights or valid domain name registrant licence to use park, develop, lease or sell.
The name has been registered for 12 years in breach of current auDA policy.
Telstra is using the name Binge.com.au in breach of current auDA policy and also possibly the ACCC. Consumers will think Telstra own it and they do not.
The acid test for auDA is whether they will apply their policy in a consistent manner. There are many notable examples in the past where auDA have allowed no leniency or exceptions over expired eligibility details.
Jeff
Rob,
We spoke about this in the comments back in Oct 2019 https://assets.com.au/domainer-show-episode-9/
You mentioned “there are currently nearly 800 deregistered PREMIUM one-word .com.au Domain Names that currently show as DE-REGISTERED Status with their ABN or ACN.” have you been back to see if this domain was on your list? Did you ever give that list to auDA so they could have dealt with this before it became a very public problem?
Why open the door for what could amount to another theft? When Domainer has highlighted the questionable reliability and ethics within auDA decision making, would it not be a kinder gesture to notify the ABN holder of their lapse? Sometimes, an ABN holder can neglect to realise it may have been cancelled. Why notify those who are seen as thieves?
auDA 3.0 New Managaement and Board here is your solution. Wake up.
auDA needs to remove the insane red tape crazy existing eligibility rules from all .com.au and .net.au immediately. If they don’t they could face a lot of legal issues and numerous class actions which are still sitting in the background ready and waiting to see what policy changes auDA is going to make the old Board and Management tried to push in and paid some of themselves secret bonuses on!
Keep the Australian presence requirement for all .au domain names. Simple.
Probem solved CUT THE EXISTING RED TAPE FOR .COM.AU AND .NET.AU – NO country in the world has the crazy auDA Red tape and auDA’s conflicting policies and rulings.
This will mean:
– auDA will sell more and have more .au renewals
– Registry Afilias will sell more and have more .au renewals
– Registrars will sell more and have more .au renewals
– Resellers will sell more and have more .au renewals
– People do not have the absurd auDA inflcted .au registrant eligibility red tape to deal with which leaves auDA out to lawsuits as it currently does.
– https://www.internetcommerce.org/auda-management-rejects-wrongful-attempts-to-prohibit-domain-name-investment-in-australia/
– https://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-recommendations-to-the-auda-board-reform-of-existing-policies-implementation-of-direct-registration/
– https://www.domainpulse.com/2019/04/11/auda-not-engaged-in-evidence-based-policy-making-ica/
– https://assets.com.au/audas-prp-fatally-flawed/
– Registrar sues auDA for deleting domain name https://www.internetcommerce.org/registrar_sues_auda_for_deleting_domain_name/
WOW look what the current auDA COO Bruce Tonkin wrote to auDA years ago regarding the proposed additional unneeded competing .au domain name direct registration some have been pushing for years via rigged surveys and stacked voting.. removal of members etc .
You better believe this info and other information which has been compiled will be submitted in any Class Action against auDA and Directors if and when it may be needed.
Bruce Tonkin auDA Current COO has historical Director and financial beneficiary links to http://www.Netfleet.com.au the auDA accredited .au domain name drop catching platform and aftermarket.
Bruce was a Director of NetAlliance Pty Ltd which is the entity that owns Netfleet.. now keep looking and ARQ Group ( Melbourne IT still owns it!).
Connect the dots… Some people have for years been in positions at auDA, on panels, as consultants for Registry change and running major Registrars to control their own personal profits from .au new registrations, renewals and the aftermarket!
https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/breaking-news-netfleet.10545/
Mostly Bruce has been right but he faced a totally currupted and illogical auDA and some crazy various Registrar staff over many years. Brett Fenton’s submissions totally conflict depending upon his mood and possibly own personal profit motives over the years. .. again all saved and ready for a Class Action in the very detailed brief when needed.
https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/auda-prp-peak-body-concerns.11824/
https://namebid.com.au/articles/19/auda-policy-review-panel-2018-doomed/
Bruce Tonkin .au policy change – “Essentially you are able to sell your domain name”
May 20, 2008
Watch on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy_885Ssqcc
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/tonkin26.txt
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2007 7:40 PM
To: jo.lim@auda.org.au
Subject: Melbourne IT response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel issues
paper, May 2007
Hello Jo,
Please find below Melbourne IT’s response to the 2007 Names Policy Panel, issues paper of May 2007.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chief Technology Officer
Melbourne IT
(1) Should .au be opened up to direct registrations (e.g domainname.au)?
If yes, should there be any policy rules, and if so what rules?
Melbourne IT is opposed to opening up registrations at the top level of .au.
The present naming structure has allowed for a stricter policy to apply to .com.au for businesses,
whilst also supporting less stringent requirements for non-profit organisations via .org.au, or
individuals via .id.au.
The naming structure also provides an indication to the user of the nature of the licence holder.
This contrasts with the .com and .org domains, where anyone is allowed to register in either of these spaces, and the distinction is no longer meaningful.
There is also the possibility for multiple registrants to use the same name, whilst still distinguishing
their nature. For example a name like flinders.com.au used by Flinders Camping is easily distinguished from flinders.edu.au which is the University. This provides more opportunity for registrants to get a simple and easy to remember domain name, and takes advantage of the hierarchy which is a key feature of the DNS. In future as the namespace grows, it is possible to operate the second level domains on independent nameservers (or even independent registries), thus better distributing the traffic load and reliability of the system.
The existing second level domains are widely recognised in Australian and internationally.
A keydrawback of introducing names directly at the top level could be damage to the businesses of existing .com.au registrants, when registrations at the top level are made to trade off their reputations. There would be a significant cost to businesses to try to protect their brands in the top level without any specific gain from a consumer perspective.
Whilst other cctlds have indeed increased their volumes of registration since opening up the top level of their ccTLD to direct registration, this has generally occurred at the same time as relaxing the policy for registrations as well as changing the price point.
auDA has already significantly relaxed the rules for domain name registration since 2002, and the growth of the .au namespace has tracked the international average for growth.
(2) Should the policy rules for asn.au, com.au, id.au, net.au and org.au be changed? If yes, what changes should be made?
Melbourne IT supports the current policy rules which have already been through regular stages of evolution, and have provided a stable environment for the growth and use of the .au domain name space.
(2.1) Should the policy rules include a clear process and authority for the deletion of a domain name for illegal or malicious use. Such uses would include, but are not limited to, disseminating spam, hosting a “phishing” site, malware hosting and distribution, capturing stolen personal information and access credentials, hosting child pornography, and recruiting individuals to launder or transfer stolen funds.
Melbourne IT would support a process for the deletion of a domain name for illegal or malicious use based on the model of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy. An independent panel would evaluate whether a domain name should be deleted for illegal or malicious use. The registrant would agree to submit to the outcome of such a dispute resolution panel as part of the registration agreement.
Any dispute resolution panel would need appropriate expertise in evaluating the relevant type of illegal or malicious use, and a complainant would need to provide appropriate evidence of such use. If some form of rapid take-down approach is used, then the complainant may need to provide some form of guarantee against any damages to the registrant’s business for a false claim.
(3) Should registrants be allowed to sell their .au domain names?
Melbourne IT is in favour of registrants being able to transfer their domain name licence to another eligible party.
The eligible party would need to comply with the policy rules. The policy rules should be designed
to protect against various infringements of trademarks, rather than creating separate rules for transfers of licence.
Currently most of the short and easy to remember domain names have been registered in .com.au. In an open market, registrants place a different value on names according to their likely return from using that name as the identifier for their business.
These short and easy to remember domain names are not available to the majority of Australian businesses. Either the existing registrant will continue to hold onto the domain name as long as they are receiving an economic benefit larger that the current fee to renew the domain name, or if the existing registrant neglects to renew the domain name, professional domain name monetizers will re-register it the second it becomes available again for re-registration.
There are examples of businesses that obtained their domain name licences under auDA’s auction process for generic names, or its process for obtaining geographic names, that are not effectively using these names, but would not be prepared to simply allow the licence to lapse given the high price they paid for the name. Many of these registrants would be prepared to transfer their names to another eligible registrant at lower cost than what they paid for to at least recover part of their investment.
auDA is being hypocritical by charging high fees for some names, but not allowing the registrant to transfer the name to another eligible registrant.
Allowing an orderly market for the transfer of domain name licences, and the re-registering of expired domain name licences, will ensure that domain names are held by those that can make the most effective use of the domain name.
The most effective use of any given name is usually not to place the name on a parked page
to receive advertising. Overtime more and more names are being ineffectively utilised in this way.
Melbourne IT believes allowing the transfers of domain name licences consistent with the policy rules, ensures that there will be efficient reuse of domain names. Melbourne IT also notes that this is the approach used for most gTLDs and ccTLDs, and also by the Australian Government with respect to phone numbers that can be dialled with alpha-numeric keypads (e.g 1800 PIZZA etc), or vanity car licence plates that are used to identify a particular car.
Paula is your middle name Sean?
Do you have a cat?
Do you like Marmalade?
Tell me the truth
You can bet that auDA will rush to placate Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers, no way will the “poor persons policy” of deletion apply to this one.
Watch as it magically all gets fixed up.
I don’t see an issue with this. auDA have previously allowed the transfer from a sole trader abn that was expired to another new registrant or even to a company where the individual is now a director. But it should definitely be updated immediately.
There is an AFR article on this:
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/foxtel-hopes-streaming-binge-will-boost-subscribers-amid-covid-19-20200416-p54ki0
In the article the writer suggests the former owner is connected with https://bingecreative.com.au/ … Surely the selling price was 6 figures??
Regsitrant ABN has been updated.