A couple of points of interest in this newsletter. Firstly, we are happy to annouce that your domain names are listed with two of the biggest registrars in Australia, Netregistry and Hostess. A third is due for release in the near future – an equally big player, PlanetDomain. Also in this newsletter we will touch on the controversial proposed internet filter in Australia, and the implications this may have on you.
Netregistry, Hostess and PlanetDomain Namespinner
We’re delighted to let you know that domain names for sale on Netfleet are now being displayed with registrars Netregistry and Hostess. Currently if a user attempts to register a domain on Netregistry, Hostess and shortly PlanetDomain (imminent!), and their attempt is unsuccessful, they will be presented with an option to purchase premium domains listed for sale on Netfleet.
For example an attempt to register tennis.com.au will display alternatives such as sydneytennis.com.au, tennisracket.com.au and tennisshop.com.au available for purchase right now.
This will result in many thousands of potential domain buyers being shown your domains for sale and, we hope, should greatly increase the sales activity on Netfleet.
However not all domains will be displayed in this way. Domains must be categorised with relevant keywords and display a target price of less than $10,000. It is our belief that only a small fraction of domains listed on Netfleet are worth more than 5-figures anyway but more importantly we believe that it would be very unlikely to convert someone expecting to pay $40 for a new registration into an aftermarket buyer spending more than $10,000. So, if you want to ensure your domains take advantage of this feature, log in to the Member Area
Australia’s Internet Censorship
It started out as a method to prevent circulation of child pornography on the internet – the federal government’s internet censorship proposal.
The original intention was to protect Australian children by limiting access to child pornography. Of course who would argue with that noble cause. However, the point is, child pornography hardly exists on the internet. In 15 years of internet access I have never witnessed anything of the sort. The fact remains that child pornography is shared through file sharing networks and never published on the internet. So the whole underlying motive for the move is completely flawed. Add that to the fact it can be easily bypassed, may accidentally block up to 1 in 12 legitimate sites & will potentially slow Australian internet speeds to a crawl and it was never looking like a great idea.
In recent developments, the website Wikileaks.org reportedly published the list of sites that were on the government’s black list. This drew the ire of Stephen Conroy, the communications minister who made the following points in the same interview:
“This is not the ACMA blacklist……………..Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution”
So it’s not the ACMA’s list but you may be punished if you link to it anyway. And we can’t tell you what not to link to because it’s secret.
Additionally, certain pages of the website that leaked the list (Wikileaks.org) have been placed on the blacklist itself. In the words of the site that leaked the list:
“The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship”.
So from an original justification to limit the scourge of child pornography the filter’s proponents are now blocking anti-censorship websites. Is this really Australia in 2009? For more information we’ve gathered some useful links here
SMH Article – Website blacklist leaked on internet
iTWire – Wikileaks threatens Conroy with criminal prosecution
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy – Internet list publication grossly irresponsible
Recent Comments