Internet NZ & The Domain Name Commission: Where Is All The Money Going? An Investigative Breakdown

I didn’t begin this investigation expecting silence. InternetNZ portrays itself as transparent and accountable, yet the moment I started asking questions about funding, authority, and governance, that transparency evaporated. What followed was a pattern of unanswered questions, evasive responses, and millions of dollars flowing into places the public cannot see. This is the story of how one of New Zealand’s most influential digital institutions quietly drifted into a crisis of trust.

*THE RUMBLINGS BEGIN*

It started at the 2025 AGM. More than a thousand members attended, and the room was flooded with straightforward questions: Who is approving public-good grants? Why are so many queries ignored? What exactly does the Domain Name Commission regulate? Why did wholesale .nz prices jump 22 percent overnight?

Most questions received no answer at all. This wasn’t a one-off oversight. It lined up with repeated reports from members, registrars, journalists, and whistleblowers who had been stonewalled for months. The so-called transparency was already cracking.

*THE MONEY TRAIL*

The deeper I looked, the stranger it became. In 2025, InternetNZ transferred eleven million dollars into an endowment fund that now pays out around one million a year. Their main accounts appear to distribute another four million annually to outside entities. None of this is itemised publicly. None of it is clearly explained.

Then came the 22 percent wholesale price increase, extracting another three million dollars a year from registrants. Despite the additional revenue, InternetNZ already breaks even. So where is all this money going?

One whistleblower summarised it bluntly:
- In 2025, external flows may have hit five million.
- In 2026, with the price hike, it could climb to eight million.

Yet InternetNZ will not disclose who receives these funds, why they were chosen, or who inside the organisation is making those decisions.

*CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?*

This is where the concerns sharpen. Multiple whistleblowers raised the possibility of conflicts of interest between decision-makers and beneficiaries of the money. No one is accusing InternetNZ of wrongdoing. The issue is that no transparency exists, making it impossible for the public to know whether the organisation’s charitable funds are being allocated fairly, ethically, and without favouritism.

Who sits on the panels allocating public-good funding?
- Do any board or staff have direct or indirect ties to the recipients?
- Are conflicts declared?
- Is any independent oversight operating at all?

These questions remain unanswered because InternetNZ refuses to address them.

*THE REGULATOR THAT ISN’T A REGULATOR*

During the AGM, InternetNZ and DNC leadership repeatedly referred to the Domain Name Commission as a “regulator.” It sounded authoritative and reassuring, but it wasn’t accurate. After reviewing the documents, I discovered that their entire claim to regulatory authority rests on a Memorandum of Understanding with MBIE.

MBIE then confirmed the critical detail: the MOU does not grant any regulatory power. It is administrative only. There is no statutory authority behind DNC’s use of the word “regulate.” InternetNZ can even amend its own appendix to the MOU without legislative oversight.

*THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING*

I examined the MOU closely. It outlines expectations, communications, and cooperation between MBIE and InternetNZ. What it does not do is establish legal authority for InternetNZ or DNC to regulate anything. MBIE confirmed this explicitly: the MOU gives no legislative power whatsoever.

Despite this, DNC continues to describe itself as a regulator. Combined with the unresolved funding questions, the pattern becomes harder to dismiss as oversight. It begins to look like structural opacity.

*THE QUESTIONS INTERNETNZ WON’T ANSWER*

To give InternetNZ a fair opportunity to respond, I wrote directly to the Chairperson, Stephen Judd, outlining the key concerns: the lack of financial breakdowns, the opacity around public-good allocations, the potential for conflicts of interest, the unsubstantiated claim of regulatory authority, and the broader pattern of unanswered member questions. I made it clear that their perspective would be included in the final report.

They did not reply.

*WHY THIS MATTERS*

InternetNZ controls the .nz domain space — a public asset, not a private empire. With that responsibility comes the obligation to be transparent, accountable, and free from conflicts of interest. When millions of dollars move without disclosure, when whistleblowers are ignored, when claims of regulatory authority go unchecked, New Zealanders deserve answers.

READ THE FULL INVESTIGATION: https://www.dehek.com/general/scam-fraud-investigations/internet-nz-the-domain-name-commission-where-is-all-the-money-going-an-investigative-breakdown/