Tag Archives: Australia

As .NZ Surges, There’s Been A Modest Surge In Coronavirus-Related Domain Registrations

A couple of reports from the people behind .nz have shown the impact of COVID-19 (coronavirus) on New Zealanders and their internet use in recent months. Statistics for .nz shows increased DNS activity, including a surge in registrations that has taken registrations to close to 715,000.

Continue reading As .NZ Surges, There’s Been A Modest Surge In Coronavirus-Related Domain Registrations

Explosive Allegations Made Against Directors Of Wasteful Spending As auDA Gets Second Choice Chair

auDA logo

It was supposed to be a new beginning. But on the day when a new auDA Board, including a new Chair, was announced, it appears there are still recriminations from those in the past with explosive allegations of what could at worst amount to corruption by outgoing directors. Not only that, the new Chair was second choice, with the first choice as Chair overruled due to what can be best described as a personality conflict.

First, today. A new Board has been appointed. The new Chair, Alan Cameron AO, was appointed after an executive search for the new Board. However the first recommendation for Chair, a high profile female company director, was overruled due to what Domain Pulse has been told can be best described as a “personality conflict” with at least one person on the outgoing Board.

Cameron has had a strong background having been appointed Chair of NSW Law Reform Commission in 2015 and prior to that was head of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) from 1993 to 2000. According to what is believed to be his LinkedIn profile he has been an Executive Director at Macquarie Group since 2007.

The new Board has stronger executive experience than previous Boards, but only a few Directors on the 9-member Board appear to have any background in the domain name industry. Also, auDA members were told there would be 6 independent appointed directors, one of which would be the Chair, and 4 elected directors. However in their announcement of the new Board today there were only 3 elected directors, none of whom have a background in domain investing which is sure to irk that community.

It also emerged today that a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in the name of Christopher Byron Leptos has been lodged on the Right to Know website [account now deleted – see below for explanation], a website setup where the public can make requests for information on the goings on in government departments and their agencies, of which auDA, the .au policy and regulatory body, comes under through their connection with the Department of Communications and the Arts. The request has been timed 2 days out for the annual general meeting on 14 November, the last of which the outgoing Directors will attend.

Leptos was the former auDA Chair who walked out of a Board meeting in late July never to return with claims he was spurned in his request for more information on the then auDA CEO Cameron Boardman’s allegedly falsified academic qualifications. However it’s likely Leptos is not the person making the FOI requests as several of the requests relate negatively to him, but rather a disgruntled present or former Director, or even staffer, or both, with intimate knowledge of recent happenings at the Board level.

There were 6 FOI requests to the Department of Communications and the Arts dated 12 November in Leptos’ name, these relating to:

  • “serious allegations of bullying and intimidation committed by AUDA Chair Chris Leptos between May 2018 and June 2019 resulting in the resignation of a company secretary and an official complaint from a current AUDA staff member”
  • a “serious breach of governance and directors duty committed by AUDA director James Deck via his attempt to inappropriately access AUDA marketing funds, specifically” relating to an application using Deck’s position on the Board for “substantial marketing funds for his private business” and that former Chair Leptos “attempted to cover up and misrepresent the conduct of Deck”
  • a request for all relevant information on a direction from Departmental Officer Vicki Middleton instructing outgoing acting Chair Suzanne Ewart to “withdraw her application for Chair of the new AUDA board”
  • allegations of “verbal abuse directed at Departmental staff member Annaliesse [sic] Williams by AUDA directors Joe Manariti and James Deck at the ICANN meeting in Barcelona in October 2018” including amount of alcohol consumed by Manariti and Deck and response of the then Chair Leptos
  • an order by acting Chair Suzanne Ewart “to pay her A$10,000 per week despite there not being a Board resolution or budget for this to occur”, which didn’t include superannuation payments and was in addition to her Chair salary of $70,000 which would have taken her total salary “to $627,000 per year, making her the 9th highest paid public servant in Australia”
  • expense claims by the aforementioned Directors James Deck and Joe Manariti relating to their attendance at the ICANN meeting in Barcelona where the FOI request alleges Deck and Manariti’s flights were “booked through Manariti’s wife [sic] travel agency (African Luxury Safaris) at 30% more than market rates and equivalent airfares and contrary to AUDA travel policy” with “4 nights in Prague, 4 nights in Paris and 7 nights in Barcelona which shows that only 3 meeting [sic] were conducted over the 18 day trip”, “hotel accommodation in Barcelona at A$1500 per night for a luxury suite, despite other AUDA staff and directors staying in A$250 per night accommodation and a “total expense claim showing the AUDA was charged over $35,000 for this travel for 3 meetings in 18 days”
  • allegations relating to the above travel by Manariti and Deck that “AUDA incurred [an FBT liability] totaling over $11,000 as the travel was of a personal nature and not approved by AUDA and that the Chair of AUDA Suzanne Ewart covered up this liability”.

UPDATE: The Right to Know account set up to raise the allegations has now been suspended as a report was received the “account was created to impersonate someone else.”

auDA Rudderless As CEO “Resignation” Follows Chair’s Walk Out

auDA logo

Tuesday’s sudden departure of the auDA CEO comes during a protracted period of turmoil at the .au policy and regulatory body and leaves nobody at the .au policy and regulatory body in positions to make key decisions on policy, marketing or spending, and with the introduction of second level registrations looming in the fourth quarter of 2019, the new rules still haven’t been announced.

In what can only be described as a tribute that was over the top in its praise of the controversial CEO, himself appointed after the controversial ousting of the founding CEO Chris Disspain, the auDA statement announcing Boardman’s departure gushes on his achievements, including “development and implementation of new Licensing Rules for .au second-level domain names, and the introduction of direct registration of .au.” With second level registrations due to be introduced within a few months and despite the auDA Board’s inference that Boardman’s “job is done” there is still much to do. Boardman himself said in the recent auDA Quarterly Report: Q2 2019 report that:

The biggest project on auDA’s immediate horizon is the implementation of second level registrations as recommended by the Policy Review Panel. Key to its delivery is the development of a national marketing and public awareness campaign which will build upon the public awareness generated during the policy development process. This project will be the biggest marketing project in auDA’s history and involves not just the uptake of second level .au names, but also building a comprehensive brand for the .au domain more widely.

Registrars are seething as policies and procedures are still to be implemented and end users, for the ones with an interest, are even less well informed. However registrars are reticent to speak on the record due to contractual arrangements. But Domain Pulse is aware of lists of complaints from registrars sent to auDA which appear to be never acted upon. And with the upcoming introduction of second level registrations, Boardman had promised on several occasions that all current registrants would be contacted, and yet it still hasn’t happened. With no CEO and Chair, one wonders what the future is for second level registrations as policies haven’t been finalised and little implemented.

It begs the question, why would Boardman leave of his own volition with still so much to do? Sources have indicated that of course, he didn’t actually resign but his hand was forced by a “reluctant” Board that certainly wouldn’t like having to go public with an ugly termination from a company that is already under the microscope of the Department of Communications and the internet using public.

Incredibly, the announcement saw no interim CEO announced at what, for end users at least, is leading up to the biggest change in the organisation’s history with the implementation of second level registrations.

Bruce Tonkin, the current COO, should have been a walk up start for the CEO position, especially after the plaudits he received in the Statement from the Board. Again, why wasn’t he? Or was there an issue and auDA would have been faced with 2 “resignations”?

Whatever is going on it once again showcases an inept Board and casts a dark shadow over the conduct of the Executive. It’s not like it was the first time either: there have been allegations Board meeting minutes have been altered after publication, sackings of staff members that spoke out against the CEO’s activities, the former Company Secretary compiled a report that ultimately led to their effective sacking and also in Boardman’s suspension of employment. All of these things highlight a pattern of concern for the Department of Communications and the Arts and the domain name community as a whole.

Boardman’s departure comes just 6 weeks after Chair Chris Leptos departed and a terse announcement that followed his abrupt departure. The departure of both means there is no Chair or CEO. Just the “current executive team [who] will collectively carry out the CEO’s responsibilities.” A recent Quarterly Report makes no mention of Leptos and his departure. It will be interesting to see if the same treatment is applied to the departing CEO upon his departure.

Then there’s the reconstitution of the auDA Board, a process that was announced on the same day as the Chair’s abrupt departure. The new Board is to consist of 6 independent directors, one of whom will be the independent Chair, plus 4 elected directors. So, in short order, we will have a new Chair, a new CEO and a new Board, right at the time when .au is going through its single biggest change. Is it time for the current auDA Board, all of which have been tarnished by Boardman, to resign and for the Department of Communications and the Arts to take a stronger position in the future of the .au namespace? It is just too damn important to leave in in the hands of the incompetent and the inept.

Going forward, what of auDA? One can expect their first test in the international community will be the APTLD meeting in Malaysia in September. And then because of the Sri Lankan bombings, auDA is hosting the APTLD meeting in February 2020. There’s also an ICANN community meeting to be held in November 2019 which auDA is hosting. There is also the lack of input in the international community. As far as Domain Pulse can ascertain, auDA is contributing to zero ICANN working groups when they used to be such a contributor. They do have a Strategic Adviser, Head of Government Affairs. But when asked Wednesday if his job was ever advertised and if so where, Domain Pulse received zero response.

So what do we know about Boardman’s “resignation”? As usual in the way auDA works since late 2016, accountability and transparency are sorely lacking, and stakeholders are kept in the dark. Following the “resignation”, it would a travesty if once again this not-for profit was engaged in another golden handshake, several of which have been paid to former employees forced out in recent years. We also have an organisation that has nobody in place that can make key decisions, including on marketing and spending. And the biggest change for .au since auDA was formed almost 2 decades ago, the introduction of second level registrations, is looking dead in the water.

Pay.com.au Goes in $168,000 Deal For Largest 3L .AU Sale

The domain name pay.com.au sold this week for a very lucrative A$168,300 (US$116,000) deal in what’s a record reported price for any three-letter .au domain.

The purchaser was Point Hacks Pty Ltd, a Melbourne based company, and the seller was Jack Media Pty Ltd based in the Australian surfing and lifestyle mecca of Byron Bay, on the east coast about 150 kilometres south of Brisbane.

The sale was brokered by well-known and now semi-retired domain investor Ned O’Meara who believes it’s a boost in confidence in the aftermarket for Australia’s country code top level domain (ccTLD).

“In a further confidence boost for the .au domain aftermarket, I’ve just negotiated the sale of the domain pay.com.au for a record price for an Aussie 3L domain of just over $168,000,” O’Meara told Domain Pulse.

“I was approached by a representative of the buyer who was a past client of mine, and as it turned out, the seller was someone who I had sold the domain to many years ago. So I came out of semi-retirement, and made it all happen within 5 days. Buyer and seller both very happy!”

The sale comes just a few weeks after it was revealed money.com.au had sold for $400,000 last year, which is one of the largest reported sales for a .au domain name, ever.

auDA ‘Not Engaged In Evidence-Based Policy Making’: ICA

Policy changes proposed an auDA Panel have been slammed by the Internet Commerce Association who have said they should ‘embrace domain investing’, “the Panel has found solutions in search of a problem” and it “has not engaged in evidence-based policy making” and that the Panel has “created equally or more unclear policies which are impossible and costly to effectively enforce.”

In late March, auDA, the policy and regulatory body for Australia’s country code top level domain (ccTLD), released a report compiled by their Policy Review Panel (PRP) who is inviting feedback from the Australian community on its final recommendations to the auDA Board. It’s turned out to be just another sad and sorry chapter since a cabal associated with the right-wing political party of Australian politics took control of auDA in 2016.

auDA logo

Over the last 3 years this cabal has seen the founding CEO booted out, referred allegations of impropriety against former employees and directors to Victorian state police that have predictably come to nothing, overseen around one thousand people from outside Australia joining as members within a few weeks when only a handful of new members ever join every month to ensure they get constitution changes, seen multiple staff and directors bullied and harassed into leaving the organisation including one being given notice while she was on sick leave having cancer treatment and who later died, likely deliberately leaked a confidential report to discredit agitators against the direction of the organisation, been the recipient of an Australian government review that said the organisation was “no longer fit-for-purpose and reform is necessary”, seen Members agitate for 2 Special General Meetings that saw a Chair resign before being booted out, undertaken a dubious Registry tender and spent A$4.247 million in the year to 30 June 2018 on consultants and advisers to further their objectives, up from $1.783 million in the previous financial year.

So it’s hardly surprising a Panel appointed by auDA has come up with a list of policies that defy evidence, are likely unworkable and seeks to alienate the registrants of what is probably a significant part of the .au portfolio.

In their submission responding to the public consultation period auDA is currently undertaking on proposed changes, the ICA summarises their problems with the auDA Panel proposals as follows:

1. auDA should reconsider its approach to domain name investing and should embrace it as a beneficial and important part of the domain name ecosystem;

2. The Panel has found solutions in search of a problem;

3. The Panel has not engaged in evidence-based policy making;

4. Rather than clarifying the policies, the Panel has merely created equally or more unclear policies which are impossible and costly to effectively enforce.

It should be noted that under rules for .au, domain monetisation is allowed, but the registering of domain names for the sole purpose of sale is not. Sales of .au domain names happen every day in Australia through expired domains via dropcatchers and aftermarket sales. auDA themselves sold many generic domain names for a windfall back in 2002.

In their submission, the ICA defends the role of domain investors, or domainers, as a legitimate activity and they “would have expected that the experiences of other countries such as the UK, Canada, United States, and New Zealand would have been examined and considered. In each of these aforementioned countries, domain investing contributes positively to the overall domain name ecosystem and helps ensure the success and viability of the registry.”

The ICA believes “the primary beneficiary of the optimism of domain investors who register in bulk domain names that would otherwise sit unregistered is auDA itself. auDA likely receives millions of dollars in revenues from such registrations and renewals. From a public policy perspective, the question arises as to what harm is caused by the optimism that results in the bulk registration of otherwise unregistered domains when balanced with all the worthwhile initiatives that auDA could fund with the revenues from such registrations and renewals.”

The ICA also wonders what problem auDA is trying to address with their policy recommendations.

“The Panel however stated in the Final Report, that ‘on balance’ it ‘believes that the resale and warehousing prohibition should be retained and strengthened’. From our review of the Final Report however, it is entirely uncertain and undocumented as to what extent there is any genuine ‘problem’ existing in the Australian namespace arising from the current rules as drafted, rather than an assumption by the Panel.”

The submission raises plenty of issues such as what constitutes the business of a domainer, what constitutes a “computer generated website” which the auDA Panel report proposes as a means of determining if the domain name used is intended for domaining. Additionally, the report contends that if a seller lists multiple domain names for sale, then this is an indicator of a domainer. And as the ICA submission notes, there’s no information provided by the auDA report as to how many domain names are listed for sale and sold, nor how many domains are warehoused.

The ICA also notes an “indicator proposed by the Panel for determining the ‘primary purpose’ of the registration is whether more than six domain names were sold or transferred during the previous six months except in relation to a business.” The ICA then asks “what constitutes a business? Who investigates how many domain names were sold or transferred by a registrant? How does the registrant prove that the domain names were transferred for a bona fide reason?”

The ICA also raises concerns about the introduction of second level registrations, whose introduction this writer has long supported. However the proposals suggested by the Panel add complications. There are also proposed changes to domain monetisation. The ICA wonders what the problem is that the auDA Panel is trying to address as there is no problem that has arisen either in practice, or that the Panel has been able to identify. The Panel identifies anecdotal problems, but nothing that is substantiated.

To download, read and make submissions on the Policy Review Panel (PRP) report, see:
https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-announces-further-phases-of-public-consultation-for-policy-reform/

The submission by the Internet Commerce Association submission to the auDA PRP, see:
https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-announces-further-phases-of-public-consultation-for-policy-reform/

auDA’s Last Elected Demand Class Director Fed Up and Resigns

The last director with any real connection to domain name registrants at the .au policy and regulatory body, auDA, has finally succumbed to pressure and resigned today. The resignation of Tim Connell means the current management has now cleared out all dissenting independence in its policy making bodies. Given that auDA is so fond of quoting its Constitution, one wonders if they now actually have a quorum?* Connell was the sole remaining elected Demand Class Director. Continue reading auDA’s Last Elected Demand Class Director Fed Up and Resigns

As auDA Cooks The Books With Hundreds of Foreign Members, They Stave Off Member Revolt

Hundreds of people from outside Australia have joined as members of auDA in recent weeks who have no demonstrated link to the future wellbeing of the .au policy and regulatory body. Apart that is from ensuring their employer will be able to direct them to vote as they see fit when required. Continue reading As auDA Cooks The Books With Hundreds of Foreign Members, They Stave Off Member Revolt

Neustar Sets The Record Straight On .AU Transition

The largest transition of a domain name Registry in history, the transfer all 3.15 million .au domains and associated data from Neustar’s to Afilias’ Registry platform happens Saturday night Australian time. And it has been controversial to say the least. In a post Friday by George Pongas, Vice President – Australian Registry Services, Neustar, he sets the record straight on the transition and rebuts some of the misleading claims published over the last 6 months.

The misleading claims include for the first time there will be 24/7 customer service and technical support in Australia. It already happens. Its also claimed there will be improvements in service for West Australian users due to a new dedicated DNS node in Perth. But there already was one. A claim of superior technology. However the new Registry system is retrofitted and not bespoke to .au as it is now. And the new Registry system “will have reduced feature sets.”

The full post by George Pongas is posted below or can be read on the AusRegistry site here.

Setting the story straight: Neustar’s role in auDA’s Registry Transformation Project

By George Pongas
Vice President – Australian Registry Services, Neustar

To all .au stakeholders and community members,

Today I’d like to discuss auDA’s .au Registry Transition and Neustar’s involvement in the process from start to finish.

Why now? Neustar has been intentionally silent on this topic so far, out of professional courtesy and due to our commercial relationship with auDA. It was not our place to comment or critique. That said, as the transition approaches we feel it’s important all the relevant facts are shared. Not only does Neustar pride itself on being a leader in the domain name Registry space and wants to protect its reputation, but we’re concerned that the Australian Internet-using public has been misinformed by recent communications regarding .au.

This has been a long and complex process – and rightly so, given the critical role .au plays in Australian business, technology and society.

First, let me start with the great job my team and my predecessors did over the last 16 years.

Neustar’s stellar track record with .au

Here’s a quick snapshot of our time as .au Registry Operator:

  • 100% DNS uptime since 1st July 2002.
  • One of the first Registries to feature real-time dynamic DNS updates & to implement EPP v1.0.
  • Aussie-built Registry developed exclusively for .au.
  • Dedicated infrastructure based in Melbourne and Sydney & for Disaster Recovery commitments.
  • Global leader in DDoS mitigation services, with a scrubbing capacity greater than 10Tbps.
  • Phenomenal year-on-year growth leading .au from approx. 250,000 domains in 2002 to over 3 million today.
  • Extensive, innovative Marketing and Education programs to Registrars and Registrants.
  • Developed the .au ‘brand’ – establishing logos and collateral.
  • 24-7 and 100% Australian-based Registrar Support: from first tier through to Application Specialist all Melbourne-based.
  • Regular industry contributor and participant, supporting organisations such as Internet Australia, .auIGF, ACCAN, APTLD and ICANN.
  • 16 years of continuous participation in auDA’s Policy Panels, Committees and Working Groups.
  • Helped establish a vigorously competitive Registrar channel holding regular Registrar events.
  • Conducted research, zone file analyses and regular surveys of Internet users in Australia to track Internet and domain name trends & examine issues facing Registrars, Registrants and end users.
  • Published monthly performance scorecard and the quarterly Industry magazine Behind the Dot.

Why the transition?

When auDA announced in April 2017 that it would conduct a competitive market exercise for the provision of Registry Services for .au, admittedly the process came as a surprise to us. That said, we were of course one of the most enthusiastic participants. We respect auDA’s right to conduct a tender process and applaud any activity truly intended to improve the performance, availability and security of .au for all Australians.

In December 2017, auDA announced that the .au Registry License Agreement would be awarded to Ireland-based Registry services provider, Afilias. Thus began the planning process for the largest transition of a domain name Registry in history, to transfer all 3.15 million .au domains and associated data from our Registry platform to Afilias’.

Setting the record straight

In the spirit of clarifying some of the claims that have been made throughout this process, I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up some points – because the .au community deserves to be fully informed.

The claim: There will be an improvement of the .au customer support service with 24/7 coverage
The truth: Neustar already provides 24/7 customer service and technical support, based in Australia

In a blog post Afilias announced that “no registrar will need to wait ‘til tomorrow’ to resolve a problem” due to the partnership between its Melbourne and global service centres to provide 24/7 support, also claiming that this service is “beginning July 1.”

Neustar’s Australia-based team includes the entire .au operations personnel; from our already 24/7 support to all our developers, DBAs and network engineers. We have provided this service for a long time, so this will not be a new offering to Registrars.

The claim: Western Australia will be better served due to a dedicated DNS node installed in Perth
The truth: Neustar already operates a DNS node in Perth, and regardless this does not guarantee the claimed improvements

In a press release on June 13, Afilias and auDA claimed that “Users of .au domains in Western Australia will now have more resilient DNS.” This is billed as a significant improvement to .au infrastructure in WA.

Neustar already has nodes in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Also, it’s important to understand that just because there’s a locally-located DNS node, it doesn’t mean that will be where a user’s query ends up. This “new” Perth node is not providing any improvement to service than what is currently offered.  In addition, Neustar has 30 global DNS nodes supporting its full Registry system plus the largest DDoS mitigation platform in the world, with 10Tbps of mitigation capacity.  It’s unclear what protection (if any) will be safeguarding .au in the future.

The claim: The new Registry offers superior technology
The truth: The new Registry system is retrofitted and not bespoke to .au

The current Neustar Registry platform has two dedicated sites in-country (active/active) to support the technical demands of .au, with full failover possible in under a very short amount of time in case of a serious incident. The new Registry will switch to one dedicated site in Melbourne that is managed by engineers, DBAs, and developers mostly based overseas – with a cloud-based stand-by (cold site). The question is: has this been tested to see how quickly emergency failover can be implemented?

In addition, our current understanding is this new setup has been retrofitted from other TLDs; whereas our Registry was custom-built for .au, with over 16 years of development to explicitly meet all auDA policy and technical requirements. It was also built here in Australia and therefore has always stored and managed all .au data in-country.

The claim: The new .au Registry will provide enhanced security for DNS
The truth: Neustar is a world leader in DNS security and runs a global network with more than sufficient capacity to support .au

Afilias has pointed to “massive capacity, smarter DNS, [and] DNSSEC deployment” as “enhancements” to the protection and safeguarding of .au.

In actuality, Neustar’s existing DNS is scaled globally to handle capacity massively above the regular volumes of traffic. Not only this, Neustar has multiple layers of security and features to handle unusual traffic, attacks and denial of service events. This includes firewalls, auto withdrawal of nodes, intelligent DNS response and DDoS scrubbing of data streams – in fact, Neustar is a global leader in DDoS mitigation, with a scrubbing capacity of over 10Tbps. DNSSEC is also already deployed across multiple .au zones and is available to Registrants through the Registry.

The claim: Registrars will see upgrades to their systems when the Registry is transitioned
The truth: The new Registry systems will have reduced feature sets

Neustar is proud of the relationship we’ve built with .au Registrars over the last 16 years. Over that time we’ve worked closely and developed true working partnerships that have allowed us to collaborate on making the .au Registry as efficient as possible for the benefit of Registrars and ultimately the .au internet community.

We’ve raised a number of concerns directly with auDA about what we considered to be inaccurate remarks comparing Neustar’s systems with the new Registry and implying that the new Registry will include “all previous functionality plus enhanced security and authentication measures”, as stated in recent auDA Member communications. We questioned auDA about this and were informed that the statement is comparing the various testing phases of Afilias’ Registry – so the latest version has “all previous functionality” of the earlier versions. It doesn’t mean the Registry will have “all previous functionality” of Neustar’s platform – which we believe the statement implies. It is a fact that a number of the proprietary features and services that Neustar currently provides to Registrars will no longer be available under the new Registry system, and thus Registrars will likely notice a difference.

What happens on July 1 once the Registry is transitioned?

At 00:00:00 on July 1, 2018, .au Registry switches in full away from Neustar. From this point, Neustar has zero control of DNS, security, support and other operations for .au. As requested by auDA, there is no rollback option for this transition – which sadly means Neustar won’t be able to support the .au community with its 3.1 million domains any longer.

As expected given the experience of running the .au domain Registry for the last 16 years, Neustar has strong opinions on the transition process. We’ve raised concerns with the timing and details of the transition and the inherent risks of this process to all relevant parties including auDA, the Department of Communications and the Arts (DOCA), as well as a number of other Australian Government agencies and departments.  Neustar has not seen what we would consider to be a sufficiently detailed Transition Plan, nor did we participate in or have seen the results of the risk assessments performed by auDA. We have found this behaviour quite puzzling and concerning and believe it is unusual for a transition of this nature.

Regardless, we are committed to continuing to fulfil all of our agreed obligations during the transition as we have done over the course of this project. We truly hope for a successful transition and the continued service without interruption for the Australian Internet community.

Neustar is in Australia to stay

While we are disappointed to see the .au Registry change hands, Neustar’s operations in Australia remain a vital part of its global Registry business, Security Solutions businesses and all the other information services we offer globally.

We’re excited to keep supporting many of our other domains for Australian customers, including the .CO domain which you might have seen in several campaigns lately, providing a truly global domain for entrepreneurs, startups and creatives. We also support the .melbourne and .sydney Top-Level Domains (TLDs), as well as numerous brand TLD clients in Australia and across Asia-Pacific.

In fact, Neustar maintains the largest portfolio of TLDs supported, with almost 300 global extensions and 14 million domains relying on our technology, expertise and know-how to keep them thriving.

We look forward to continuing to participate in and support the Australian Internet community, as we have done for 16 years and will do for years to come.

About the Author:

George has been actively involved with the Australian domain industry since 2003. He currently holds the position of Vice President – Australian Registry Services at Neustar, Inc. He also served four two-year terms as a director on the auDA Board after being popularly elected by the supply class from 2009 to 2017. In the past, he has held CEO and other senior positions at successful Registrars, and played a valuable leadership role in shaping the .au retail sector in its formative years. He is dedicated to contributing his commercial sensibility and extensive industry experience to the benefit of the Australian domain industry and all Internet users.

auDA Stacks Membership With Almost 1,000 New Members and No Accountability

It’s taken 2 people 5 Board meetings, a period that could be anything from 5 to 8 months, from submitting their application to join auDA to acceptance, sources have told Domain Pulse. But now we have 955 member applications approved in one Board meeting held today. News of the approvals had begun to circulate ahead of today’s Board meeting as auDA gains a reputation of being a leaky boat.

The drawn out process of vetting applicants combined with numerous reports of applicants having been called with obtrusive questions that aren’t related to their membership applications has been commonplace over the last 12 to 24 months. Seemingly however with a fractious membership, several registrars and the incoming registry Afilias have dragooned their staff, many of whom who are not in Australia, to join in record time. Was each applicant contacted all contacted and verified as per auDA’s previous process and did auDA verify that each payment was made from an independent bank account?

The record approval of new members comes about with a Special General Meeting looming next month that is calling for the ousting of the 3 Independent Directors, including Chair Chris Leptos. The newly approved 955 members won’t be able to vote in the SGM, which auDA acknowledged in an announcement today. However they will be able to vote at the upcoming Annual General Meeting to be held later this year which could in effect overturn the resolutions put forward in the SGM and rubber stamp constitutional changes that auDA is seeking to bring about including minimising the Member’s voice in the organisation.

The number of applicants approved in today’s meeting is hundreds more than has been approved before. As Domain Pulse reported last week, “as of 28 May 2018 there were 356 Demand and Supply members listed on the auDA website, up from 311 as of 15 February. … There were 318 members as of 29 June 2017 and 286 in January 2017.”

Approved at another Board meeting earlier this year were some members with the surname “Leptos”, the same surname as auDA’s Chair Chris Leptos. Domain Pulse would be interested to know if the members with the surname “Leptos” are family members of the Chair, and if any of those are minors, that is under the age of 16 years, as well as knowing if they have paid for their own membership dues. Further, do any of them even own a .au domain name or what is their interest in the .au domain name space?

The auDA announcement also refers to a “positive response from [registrars] Ventra IP, Arq Group [formerly Melbourne IT], Dreamscape Networks [better known as Crazy Domains] and [incoming registry operator] Afilias, other organisations and individuals” that has resulted in a “surge in membership.”

Domain Pulse understands that many of those joining are staff at the above companies, including around 200 from Afilias. Afilias currently has around 10 to 20 staff in Australia, so the vast majority will live abroad and have little to no interest in the Australian domain name landscape, apart from giving support to Afilias’ continued operation of the registry where they can when it comes up for tender again and where required to vote in favour of the current auDA management. Domain Pulse would also like to know how many of these people working for the registrars and incoming registry have paid for their own memberships. The auDA constitution forbids membership being paid for by anyone apart from the applicant.

Domain Pulse would also be interested to know of the vetting procedure. Has the obtrusive questioning on who applicants know and what their background is been done for each applicant? The obvious answer is no. These applications have been rushed through so “friendly” auDA members are ready to rubber stamp any constitutional or policy changes auDA puts forward at the AGM later this year and beyond.

In principle the increase in Members is welcome. The government and former Board members have called for auDA to increase their membership. One proposal floated by a former Board member has been to establish a model like the Canadian registry, CIRA, where all domain name registrants are automatically entitled to membership. For auDA, the .au country code top level domain manager, applicants have to join in “supply” (representatives of the registry, a registrar or a reseller) or “demand” (everyone else) and pay an annual membership fee. This rush of members though has nothing to do with democratising auDA but having the membership as a pliant tool for auDA management.

* Disclosure: the writer was an auDA Board member (2005 to 2007), served on 3 auDA Names Policy Panels (2007, 2010 and 2015), was a supplier to auDA for 14 years and is now a supplier to Neustar, among a number of other registries, providing online media monitoring services.

Domain Name Renewal Scam sees 2 Australian Companies Fined $1.95M

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered 2 companies to pay a combined fine of A$1.95 million (US$1.46m) for trying to lure Australian businesses into a fraudulent domain name renewal scheme. The court ordered Domain Corp Pty Ltd and Domain Name Agency Pty Ltd (also trading as Domain Name Register) pay the combined penalties for breaching the Australian Consumer Law.

From November 2015 to at least April 2017, the two companies sent out approximately 300,000 unsolicited notices to businesses, which looked like a renewal invoice for the business’s existing domain name. Instead, these notices were for the registration of a new domain name at a cost ranging from $249 (US$186) to $275 (US$206).

The Court declared that the Domain Companies made false and misleading representations and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in sending these notices. Australian businesses and organisations paid approximately $2.3 million to the companies as a result of receiving the notices.

“The Domain Companies misled businesses into thinking they were renewing payment for the business' existing domain name, when in fact the business was paying for a new domain name,” ACCC Acting Chair Delia Rickard said.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which took the companies to court, is warning any business or consumer receiving a renewal notice for a ‘.com’ or '.net.au’ domain name to check that the notice is to renew their proper domain name.

“These sham operations target small businesses, capitalising on a lack of understanding of the domain name system or a busy office environment. We encourage businesses to be vigilant when paying invoices, especially if it is for a domain name registration service,” Ms Rickard said.

The Court also declared that the sole director of both Domain Companies, Mr Steven Bell (also known as Steven Jon Oehlers), was knowingly concerned in, and a party to, the conduct.

The Court made other orders by consent, including injunctions for three years against each of the companies and for five years against Mr Bell. These injunctions include a requirement that if any of the parties decide to send out further notices, each notice has to prominently include the words, “This notice does not relate to the registration of your current domain name. This is not a bill. You are not required to pay any money”.

The Court also made an order disqualifying Mr Bell from managing a corporation for five years and ordered him to pay costs to the ACCC, fixed at $8,000.