From: Wade Davidson Sent: Sunday, 30 April 2006 11:56 PM To: jo.lim@auda.org.au Subject: Domain monetisation and the close and substantial connection rule Dear Jo, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues paper regarding domain name monetisation. There were several direct questions in the issues paper, I have chosen to respond to each of them below. Q: The key question posed by this paper is, should it be acceptable under the close and substantial connection rule to register domain names for the primary purpose of domain monetisation? A: The primary use for the .com.au and .net.au is commercial, therefore registering domain names for the purpose of mentisation should be acceptable. If the content presented is related to the domain name there is a close and substantial connection. Given the wide variety of ways auDA has listed that a domain name can be monetised, this would likely include anyone who registers a domain name with the intention to make an income from their website. Whether monetisation is performed via one page, multiple pages, redirection, or fully developed websites should not be auDA’s concern. If the content is connected to the domain name there is a close and substantial connection. Q: Do all or any of the above methods establish a close and substantial connection between the registrant and the domain name? A: Yes all of the methods listed do establish a close and substantial connection. Domainers are in the business of earning maximum revenue, this can only be achieved by delivering content that is closely and substantially connected to the domain name itself. Google and other companies have developed technology to deliver both targeted and localised advertising content in a format that is easy for publishers to use, this shouldn’t be a reason to discriminate against domainers for not developing “real” websites. Given the topic is monetisation, if a domainer were to have a 1 page website that looked like a ppc page, had all the same text links as a ppc page, but was not actually receiving any payment for the traffic, essentially not monetising their domain, would they still be questioned if there was a close and substantial connection? Is it the actual content in question or the fact domainers are able to earn an income through these pages? Google and Yahoo (Overture) the largest providers of paid search ads have strict criteria and approval processes for who is allowed to advertise through their networks, the chance of a consumer being lead to an irrelevant website is miniscule. In many cases the quality of domainers landing pages are far better than many “real” .au websites. I find it offensive that AUDA’s key concern is that people are monetising domains, if the content delivered is connected to the domain name it should not be AUDA’s concern if the domain registrant receives payment. Afterall, auDA has profited from the registration, why shouldn’t the registrant? In particular I find it unreasonable that the AUDA has included the following: “Developed website: The domain name (usually a high traffic generic domain name) resolves to a fully developed and maintained website which includes advertising and affiliate links.” This essentially includes every website that generates income, should registrant’s investments of time and money be continually at risk of being taken away from them? Q: Are some methods of domain monetisation more or less acceptable than others? A: .com.au and .net.au are commercial domain spaces, essentially everyone in this space should be entitled to “monetise” their domain name. I find it unacceptable for auDA to decide what sort of websites or forms of monetisation are acceptable. Q: Is it acceptable for generic domain names to be used for domain monetisation purposes, as opposed to non-generic domain names? A: All domains in the commercial space of .com.au and .net.au should be allowed to be monetised, whether generic or non-generic. Ruling one in or out would only add further vagueness to auDA policies. Q: Is it a better use of the domain space for generic domain names to be registered and resolve somewhere, instead of remaining unregistered? A: Yes it is far better for the domain to resolve somewhere, the current situation has many domain owners too scared of using their registered domains for monetisation, in fear of auDA deleting them. We are in a situation now where not only unregistered names don’t resolve, but registered names do not resolve either, this will only increase if monetisation is disallowed. Unregistered domains reduce the credibility of the .au space. There are many generic one word domains that do not resolve which auDA seems to have no trouble with, many of these were picked up in the original auction and are still yet to be used, do these registrants have a genuine connection to the domains? This portrays to the world that our best domains have no use and are of no value. Why should 2 or 3 word generic domains be of such interest to auDA when one word names like wine.com.au, ties.com.au, beer.com.au and many others are allowed to lay dormant for years? Perhaps these registrants would like to monetise their domains but are fearful of their domains being deleted, if monetisation is ruled out there will be an immediate increase in the amount of domains that do not resolve. This will only devalue the name space further, frustrating consumers that direct navigation is not available to them and frustrating potential registrants that find domains they want to register are not available but also are not currently used. Many potential registrants use direct navigation to check domain availability, when a domain does not resolve they presume it is available to register as it has no website, this only adds further confusion when they find the domain is actually not available. It was mentioned that temporarily parking domains is ok, how long does auDA define as temporary? Q: If so, does it matter where the domain names resolve? A: Yes, the policy insists a close and substantial connection, this should be auDA’s only concern, whether monetisation is involved should not be interest to auDA or part of its decision whether there is a close and substantial connection. Currently there is nothing stopping anyone from buying up all the remaining 2 and 3 word combinations and leaving them to not resolve anywhere as long as they have the intention to eventually setup websites that are close and substantially connected. If the domain resolves to a “real” website or a ppc landing page it should not be AUDA’s concern. Q: Is tasting or taste testing an acceptable practice? A: No, tasting is not an acceptable practice. Q: Does it matter if an increase in domain name registrations doesn’t necessarily equate to increased revenue? A: It would be almost impossible for there not to be an increase in revenue, domainers are alive and well in the .au space, already pumping substantial resources into the industry, if the practice becomes accepted this will only increase, benefiting all involved in the industry as well as creating jobs. Q: Does it matter how many domain names are registered by a single registrant? A: No, currently there is no limit and this policy should remain, any attempt to impose a limit would no doubt be worked around. There were several references to domainers registering hundreds of thousands of domains in other name spaces, this would never happen in the .au space due to the high cost and the lack of high traffic names in comparison to .com Q: What is the effect on the .au domain space if a single registrant holds a significant percentage of total registrations? A: This situation already exists in the .au space, many registrants do own significant percentages of total registrations, this does not currently seem to have any negative effect. We live in a country that is very familiar with a handful of companies owning significant percentages of certain industries. Q: What effect might domain monetisation have on the character and utility of the .au domain space? A: Australian internet users will be allowed to enjoy the use of direct navigation with confidence that they will reach a website and not an error page. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to respond on this very important matter. It has been extremely interesting to read the responses over the last month and see the large amount of intelligent responses in support of monetisation. Most of all I find it particularly refreshing to know auDA’s view is “that there is nothing wrong with domain monetisation per se”. Regards Wade Davidson