auDA Board Elections

[joshrowe]

I have started a new thread to discuss potential conflicts of interest for prospective board members over here: http://www.dntrade.com.au/potential-conflicts-interest-t3875.html

 

[neddy]

I have started a new thread to discuss potential conflicts of interest for prospective board members over here: http://www.dntrade.com.au/potential-conflicts-interest-t3875.html

Josh, I'm not exactly sure what you're hinting at here. You've obviously got something or someone in mind - care to enlighten us?

I think it is only fair that you do so - that way whoever you are referring to is given a chance to respond.

From my experience, many elected officials (be it in the corporate world or government) can have conflicts of interest from time
to time. When this happens, it is normal for that person not to engage in debate or vote on an issue that affects them. But that
doesn't stop them being an effective member/director/elected official on all other issues.

 

[joshrowe]

Josh, I'm not exactly sure what you're hinting at here. You've obviously got something or someone in mind - care to enlighten us?

I think it is only fair that you do so - that way whoever you are referring to is given a chance to respond.

Hi Ned,

I would like to hear a response from all candidates actually.

Whilst, I think I know of some of the candidates industry involvement, I'd rather they each speak for themselves so the information is factual.

From my experience, many elected officials (be it in the corporate world or government) can have conflicts of interest from time to time. When this happens, it is normal for that person not to engage in debate or vote on an issue that affects them. But that doesn't stop them being an effective member/director/elected official on all other issues.

I agree that conflicts of interest can be managed.

I was not trying to suggest that it would make it impossible to be an auDA director if conflict existed.

 

[neddy]

Question re eligibility for voting

Here's a question for all candidates - but in particular for Josh Rowe.

Not picking on you Josh (yet!), but given that you are an existing auDA director standing for re-election, I would be really interested in your point of view.

It concerns eligibility to vote - who can register etc.

There are two classes of members - Supply Members and Demand Members. "Supply" has strict eligibility requirements; "Demand" does not.

• Supply Class - for domain name industry participants (registry operators, registrars and resellers). There are just 26 members +/-.
  
  
• Demand Class - for domain name holders (registrants), internet users and the general public. There are approximately 215 members - a huge increase on this time last year. A whole lot of members from this forum have contributed to these numbers, but there are a lot of "other" newcomers as well.

My question relates to the "Demand Class" of memberships. The word "demand" indicates to me that this category should be for people actually using services related to the purchase and usage of domain names and services.

Just as there are eligibility requirements to become a "Supply" member; should there not be better eligibility requirements for "Demand" members? I mean, you can't buy an .au domain unless you satisfy eligibility criteria! i.e. a "close and substantial" connection!

We don't want double standards do we?

What's your opinion? Am I misguided?

 

[DomainNames]

Good questions admin.. keep them coming!

 

[joshrowe]

Here's a question for all candidates - but in particular for Josh Rowe.

Not picking on you Josh (yet!), but given that you are an existing auDA director standing for re-election, I would be really interested in your point of view.

You're keeping me on my toes Ned!

It concerns eligibility to vote - who can register etc.

There are two classes of members - Supply Members and Demand Members. "Supply" has strict eligibility requirements; "Demand" does not.

The definition of membership classes is found in the auDA Constitution:
http://www.auda.org.au/about/constitution/#_Toc445827123

9.4 Qualification for Supply Class Membership

Any Legal Person that is a Registry Operator, an auDA accredited Registrar, or a reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar, in the .au name space, qualifies to be a Supply Class Member.

If a group of related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law) consists of more than one Legal Person who qualifies for Supply Class membership, then only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.

...

9.5 Qualification for Demand Class Membership

Any Legal Person that does not qualify for Supply Class membership may apply to be a Demand Class Member.

Therefore, Demand Class is made up of anyone who does not qualify for Supply class.

• Supply Class - for domain name industry participants (registry operators, registrars and resellers). There are just 26 members +/-.

There's no reason why the number of Supply Class members could not be higher. There are many resellers in the industry. I'm surprised that there are not more resellers who have signed up as auDA members and lobbied for increased representation on the auDA board.

• Demand Class - for domain name holders (registrants), internet users and the general public. There are approximately 215 members - a huge increase on this time last year. A whole lot of members from this forum have contributed to these numbers, but there are a lot of "other" newcomers as well.

My question relates to the "Demand Class" of memberships. The word "demand" indicates to me that this category should be for people actually using services related to the purchase and usage of domain names and services.

Just as there are eligibility requirements to become a "Supply" member; should there not be better eligibility requirements for "Demand" members? I mean, you can't buy an .au domain unless you satisfy eligibility criteria! i.e. a "close and substantial" connection!

We don't want double standards do we?

What's your opinion? Am I misguided?

My view of "Demand" class is that it represents those who register and/or use domain names.

Therefore, a simplistic view of the domain name industry supply chain split by auDA membership class might look like this:

Demand class: End Users, Registrants (including domainers) and Specialists (e.g. lawyers)
Supply class: Resellers, Registrars and Registries.

 

[neddy]

It concerns eligibility to vote - who can register etc.

My question relates to the "Demand Class" of memberships. The word "demand" indicates to me that this category should be for people actually using services related to the purchase and usage of domain names and services.

Just as there are eligibility requirements to become a "Supply" member; should there not be better eligibility requirements for "Demand" members? I mean, you can't buy an .au domain unless you satisfy eligibility criteria! i.e. a "close and substantial" connection!

We don't want double standards do we?

What's your opinion? Am I misguided?

Josh, I was hoping you'd definitively answer my question! Should there be better eligibility requirements for "demand" members (as there are for "supply" members)?

I'm not for one moment suggesting anything untoward, but what is to stop "membership stacking" so that voting outcomes can be manipulated? (It has happened in unions and political organisations for years - it's often in the news).

There's no reason why the number of Supply Class members could not be higher. There are many resellers in the industry. I'm surprised that there are not more resellers who have signed up as auDA members and lobbied for increased representation on the auDA board.

Perhaps this should be the other way around Josh? At the moment, there is a complete imbalance.

"Supply" class - 4 Directors - representing 26 members

"Demand" class - 4 Directors - representing 215 members

 

[joshrowe]

Josh, I was hoping you'd definitively answer my question! Should there be better eligibility requirements for "demand" members (as there are for "supply" members)?

As per above; my view of "Demand" class is that it represents those who register and/or use domain names.

So whilst a stricter entry requirement could be introduced for those who register domain names, end users of domain names are basically anyone with a connection to the Internet. My definition of an end user of a domain name is a person who visits a web site, sends emails, etc.

Do you see any benefits for restricting Demand class membership to registrants only?

How would the views of end users of domain names be represented on the auDA membership?

I'm not for one moment suggesting anything untoward, but what is to stop "membership stacking" so that voting outcomes can be manipulated? (It has happened in unions and political organisations for years - it's often in the news).

auDA takes membership stacking seriously and has taken action on the behaviour in the past, for example: http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/agm2003-xm4.pdf [PDF]

Perhaps this should be the other way around Josh? At the moment, there is a complete imbalance.

"Supply" class - 4 Directors - representing 26 members

"Demand" class - 4 Directors - representing 215 members

I have found that the membership classes grow and shrink with the number of issues that each class wish to influence at any particular time. In 2000 when there was no registrar competition there were double the current number of Supply class members and fewer Demand class members than now.

auDA Members as at 27/11/2000, from: http://web.archive.org/web/20010301181510/http://auda.org.au/members_list.txt

"Supply" class - 58 members
"Demand" class - 148 members
"Representive" class - 19 members (this class now merged with Demand Class)

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

hi guys

just a reminder to get your proxy forms in, they are due by 5pm 13 October 2011.

Remember to keep your fax transmission receipts.

Cheers
Erhan

 

[neddy]

So whilst a stricter entry requirement could be introduced for those who register domain names, end users of domain names are basically anyone with a connection to the Internet. My definition of an end user of a domain name is a person who visits a web site, sends emails, etc.

Do you see any benefits for restricting Demand class membership to registrants only?

How would the views of end users of domain names be represented on the auDA membership?

I laughed when I saw your definition of "end users". An end user to a domainer is somewhat different!

However you do raise a good point Josh. Users of domain names (those that do not own domain names) do have a right to be represented.

But surely then domain owners and domainers should have their own special class of membership just like "supply"? There are a lot of people
who make their living from domains (just like "supply" members). As you have indicated, "supply" has a clear and unambiguous membership criteria.

Yet "demand" is for every man and his dog (well perhaps not his dog) that doesn't fit into "supply". Seems out of kilter to me.

And do you know what the big irony in all this is?

Almost anyone can join auDA as a "demand" member by filling in a form and paying a small fee. Yet this same standard doesn't apply to the ownership
of domains. That is not a free market - oh no. You have to have an ABN, ACN, ARBN, BN or TM - and a "close and substantial connection".

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

There was a Representative Class but that was abolished.

The best way to have representation which is balanced is to put a cap of 3 consecutive terms for directors tenure after which time they are ineligible to stand for election for 2 years. This way you get a circulation on the board and you get different people from different backgrounds making a contribution.

 

[DomainNames]

There was a Representative Class but that was abolished.

The best way to have representation which is balanced is to put a cap of 3 consecutive terms for directors tenure after which time they are ineligible to stand for election for 2 years. This way you get a circulation on the board and you get different people from different backgrounds making a contribution.

This is a great idea. It stops people from becoming too comfortable and set in their ways... This should also include the CEO position which was originally a contract role but never seems to be re advertised. Most government and private businesses and also Non profits rotate Ceo and at least advertise. New blood is needed in Auda staff and also in board members.

Make it a 2 year consecutive term and then disqualify directors. The idea of Auda is not to provide a source of income for people ( other than staff) or for the people to gain any personal benefit from being directors etc. By making it clear people need to do their best for 2 terms and then move on it will be a fairer system for all and not just a select view. People can still offer their services and help to auda but its not fair if Directors plan long term roles, income, jobs, benefits, contracts from being directors.. It needs to be all crystal clear for the benefit of all the role of a director is to serve.

You have to ask as Auda gets bigger and so does its income and expenditure to match how did Melbourne It run the .au namespace before Auda 10 years ago with far lower costs before Auda existed? Its important Auda remains a service for the .au namespace and does not grow into an enterprise that exceeds its charter and reason for existence. Reading the Auda budgets it raises questions as to how directors approve some expenditure. http://www.auda.org.au/about/budget/ http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auDA_Budget_Summary_09-10x.pdf

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

my main concern is that things can't change when the same people who have entrenched positions keep getting elected, this has been proven time and time again.

It is healthy for all organisations to have different people making contributions at a board level.

Of the current Demand Class directors there is no one with experience in 'the domain name industry' (being domain monetisation and domain development) or small business. Directors with this knowledge / experience would be a positive thing.

I am standing for election not for the tiny Director's fee but rather to campaign to bring about some positive changes which are desperately overdue.

Cheers
Erhan

 

[L-Jarrett]

With respect to Josh, I think the question of conflicts of interest is a complete red herring.

Conflicts of interest will generally arise in the context of a particular decision or discussion that needs to take place, rather than arising "at large". In my view, it would be almost impossible to identify all hypothetical conflicts.

Unless you have a particular conflict to disclose, Josh, I don't think it's appropriate to go on a fishing expedition in relation to other candidates. The two directors appointed to the Board will ultimately have legal obligations under the Corporations Act to disclose any conflicts of interest as and when they arise.

For what it's worth (before the question is asked in response to this post!) I don't have any conflicts to disclose.

 

[brettf]

But surely then domain owners and domainers should have their own special class of membership just like "supply"? There are a lot of people
who make their living from domains (just like "supply" members). As you have indicated, "supply" has a clear and unambiguous membership criteria.

I'd personally go the opposite direction. Remove all the classes of membership and just have a sole membership type.

I think with 4 'independents' on the board there is enough balance to get past any perceived issues.

The only caveat I'd add to that, is I'd then think you'd need some type of restriction about employees of companies that have a financial benefit. For example if Netregistry signed up all it's staff as members, or say Maddocks who provide legal services etc. In fact regardless this probably should be in place anyway.

Just my 2c.

 

[Simon Johnson]

This should also include the CEO position which was originally a contract role but never seems to be re advertised. Most government and private businesses and also Non profits rotate Ceo and at least advertise. New blood is needed in Auda staff and also in board members.

I would like to hear what the other candidates think about this issue. Back in 2009, IT News ran this article about the auDA Election. My view hasn't changed since then; the role needs to be reviewed.

Do the other candidates support a review of the CEO position? Yes/No

Unless you have a particular conflict to disclose, Josh, I don't think it's appropriate to go on a fishing expedition in relation to other candidates.

Agreed.

The two directors appointed to the Board will ultimately have legal obligations under the Corporations Act to disclose any conflicts of interest as and when they arise.

Josh, are you aware of this?

The only caveat I'd add to that, is I'd then think you'd need some type of restriction about employees of companies that have a financial benefit. For example if Netregistry signed up all it's staff as members, or say Maddocks who provide legal services etc.

Agree with your thoughts Brett. I'd like to see this implemented.

 

[neddy]

I'd personally go the opposite direction. Remove all the classes of membership and just have a sole membership type.

I think with 4 'independents' on the board there is enough balance to get past any perceived issues.

The only caveat I'd add to that, is I'd then think you'd need some type of restriction about employees of companies that have a financial benefit. For example if Netregistry signed up all it's staff as members, or say Maddocks who provide legal services etc. In fact regardless this probably should be in place anyway.

Just my 2c.

I think that is worth more than 2c Brett. Particularly so as you have previously been an auDA Board Member.

In fact, I think it is a great idea - I hadn't even thought of that possibility. That would certainly simplify matters.

Your 2nd last paragraph is an interesting one. A number of us have been discussing this very issue. Particulary since Josh Rowe's post
about "conflicts of interest".

It comes down to whether people or organisations that have "pecuniary interests" should be allowed to vote in auDA elections.

The corporate world and various branches of government are often forced to make rules about this to avoid both the perception and
possibility of "votes for benefits".

What do the candidates think about pecuniary interests? Erhan, Josh, Lisa, Paul and Simon?

And what do other members think?

 

[joshrowe]

I laughed when I saw your definition of "end users". An end user to a domainer is somewhat different!

I'm curious to understand what your definition of "end users" is - can you please share it?

However you do raise a good point Josh. Users of domain names (those that do not own domain names) do have a right to be represented.

But surely then domain owners and domainers should have their own special class of membership just like "supply"? There are a lot of people who make their living from domains (just like "supply" members). As you have indicated, "supply" has a clear and unambiguous membership criteria.

Yet "demand" is for every man and his dog (well perhaps not his dog) that doesn't fit into "supply". Seems out of kilter to me.

And do you know what the big irony in all this is?

Almost anyone can join auDA as a "demand" member by filling in a form and paying a small fee. Yet this same standard doesn't apply to the ownership
of domains. That is not a free market - oh no. You have to have an ABN, ACN, ARBN, BN or TM - and a "close and substantial connection".

It is timely that there is debate about auDA's membership structures. There is a review into the governance of .au underway, which has the following terms of reference:

from: http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-aureview-tor.pdf

The independent reviewer shall inquire into and report on auDA’s governance arrangements. The
review will include examination of-

1) The accountability measures that apply to auDA, including:

a. the effectiveness of the lines of accountability from auDA to auDA members and
stakeholders, including Government and the public at large;

b. auDA’s Board and membership structures and the balance between the interests of
end users and industry;

c. whether enhancements to auDA’s existing governance and financial model should
be considered, drawing on examples from other ccTLD managers and from
organisations in other sectors where administrators manage assets in the public
interest; and

d. whether enhancements should be made to mechanisms for appeal and
reconsideration of decisions made by auDA when implementing .au domain name
policy.

2) The transparency of auDA’s operations, including:

a. the transparency of auDA’s decisions and whether decisions are adequately
explained and rationale given;

b. auDA’s stakeholder engagement, and the level of information that auDA provides
to members and the public at large;

c. the effectiveness and transparency of auDA’s policy development process in .au
and whether all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate;

d. the status of the auDA Foundation; and

e. whether auDA should establish specific Board committees to accord with best
practice in not-for-profit corporate governance.

3) The rights and responsibilities of auDA stakeholders, including:

a. the nature, scope and interaction of rights and obligations of the Registry,
registrars, resellers and registrants in relation to each other and other rights
holders; and

b. the mechanisms by which law enforcement authorities and regulators (such as the
ASIC, ACCC, ACMA and IP Australia) are able to interact effectively with auDA.

Westlake Consulting is undertaking the review, see: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-07042011/

 

[joshrowe]

The idea of Auda is not to provide a source of income for people ( other than staff) or for the people to gain any personal benefit from being directors etc.

If someone thinks that becoming an auDA board member will result in money and fame then they're dreaming!

In fact, for those who are aware of my past efforts to take on rogue operators I have put myself at significant personal risk in order to fight for better outcomes for the domain name industry. There was no gold star for that.

As Erhan pointed out, auDA pays a small board meeting sitting fee. However, this does not cover the time I take off from my day job (without pay) to participate in auDA related activities.

Equally by having "auDA Director" on my CV does not equate to a plethora of job offers from corporate Australia (the industry I work in). In fact most business people have no idea what "auDA" is, they generally know about registrars and web hosting companies - which they perceive to provide commodity services.

 

[DomainNames]

If someone thinks that becoming an auDA board member will result in money and fame then they're dreaming!

In fact, for those who are aware of my past efforts to take on rogue operators I have put myself at significant personal risk in order to fight for better outcomes for the domain name industry. There was no gold star for that.

As Erhan pointed out, auDA pays a small board meeting sitting fee. However, this does not cover the time I take off from my day job (without pay) to participate in auDA related activities.

Equally by having "auDA Director" on my CV does not equate to a plethora of job offers from corporate Australia (the industry I work in). In fact most business people have no idea what "auDA" is, they generally know about registrars and web hosting companies - which they perceive to provide commodity services.

Hi Josh do you think after being on the board for 10 years you and some others should step aside & give someone else a go? How about other long term directors.. the CEO.. etc.. should they also give some other people a chance?

You could put Auda Director 2001 - 2011 on your CV and it would give you the same cred.

Give some of these other guys / girls a chance and if they dont do any good apply again in a year or 2. Lets see how they perform.

Auda Budgeted Directors costs for 2009/ 2010 where $300,000 . http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auDA_Budget_Summary_09-10x.pdf