auDA Board Elections

[DavidL]

It depends on what your definition of success is - how would you define success?

A successful names policy panel, in my opinion, is one that properly considers all the relevant issues, seeks public & industry input, acts on that input and puts forward proposals to the auDA board for changes.

Well we have a differing opinion on this. My definition of success of a event like this is rather based on outcomes & results rather than how well we followed operational procedures.

Just taking a step back, forgetting that this is even about domains, to me, a once-every-three-years chance to make significant strategic changes or innovations which actually fails to make any is a waste of time, money & opportunity.

Apart from the recommendations that the board bizarrely rejected (more options for domain registration length and release of single character domains), it seems that the overall sentiment to issues raised was 'No need to change - it's working OK'. Complacency at best, arrogance at worst.

Imagine if Google, Facebook, Apple etc just rested on their laurels for three years because in their respective fields 'everything's going OK'?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Josh in response your post:

Good luck!

However, as I have said a number of times before - policy change happens through recommendations from policy panels. The best chance of success is to achieve public & industry support for policy changes.

When will the Domainer's Industry Association be set up? How will it engage with the broader industry to garner support for the key policy changes?

The time now has come for our industry to have representatives on the board, we can also be on the panels as you suggest. The minority report had broad industry support.

Our Association will be announced shortly, stay tuned....

What do you mean by this?

At the AGM the rules on Proxies were changed. The changes to the rules were without notice and directly contrary to what the proxy forms represented to members. Very unfair.

If these changes didn't occur then in all likelihood I may have won due to the very small difference in votes between Paul and myself.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Domain Names raised an issue which we should also seriously consider:

5. is there a need for an auDA Ombudsman using the same framework as the Icann Ombudsman? http://www.icann.org/en/ombudsman/ www.icannombudsman.org/

There is merit in setting this type of system up in .au. For example the existing Registrant Appeals process is flawed and ineffective - that is why no one has ever used it. It was implemented without any consultation with the people on this forum (or broader industry to my knowledge), who are most likely to be subject to adverse decisions.

Josh will the board we releasing the Westlake Report for public comment ? For those of you who aren't aware Richard Westlake from NZ is undertaking a review of auDA and will be providing the board with a report containing his recommendations. Ideally the Board should release the report for public comment.

 

[DomainNames]

There are auDA members which auDA pays for services.

For the AGM which has just occurred, I don't know which auDA members voted and for who.



There is a specific item in the auDA constution which prohibits voting agreements.

from: http://www.auda.org.au/about/constitution/#_Toc445827236





If you have evidence of a specific issue, then I strongly suggest you put it in writing to the auDA Chairman.

If you are not comfortable with writing to the auDA Chairman, then you may wish to write to the Government.



Are there any issues which the existing mechanisms have not been able to handle?

hi Josh what is the government department you suggest people write to? can you provide full details please as others may wish to write in with their concerns since no independant body seems to exist does it? Is there an auDA ombudsman? Why not? Icann has one so why has auDA and the board not acted on this need for the au namespace after 10 years in the .au namespace administrator role ?

Would you and Paul Levins support an auDA Ombudsman? can you raise this at your next available opportunity and post here your proposal you make to auDA for it

an ombudsman is independant. There is no use suggesting people write to auDA or the chairman for an independent, impartial or neutral outcome

http://www.icann.org/en/ombudsman


What is the ICANN Ombudsman and what does he do for you?
•He is independent, impartial, and neutral;
•A reviewer of facts;
•An investigator of complaints about unfairness;
•An ADR practitioner

The ICANN Ombudsman has jurisdiction over complaints about:
•Things done (or not done) by one or more members of ICANN staff Board or an ICANN constituent body.
•Things done (or not done) by the Board of Directors which may be inconsistent with the Articles or the Bylaws

 

[David Goldstein]

One thing those here should consider, whether there is a domainer's association or not, is on future auDA panels that those with similar interests to caucus before meetings and work to support each other where there is agreement. Even for those who agreed with certain issues on the latest names policy panel, there was little coherence in arguments and little support for one another which made it difficult to argue against those who opposed change, such as the lawyers.

While I favour change, it wasn't the existing auDA board that was an impediment to change, it was the lawyers on the panel (Erhan excepted). It was nigh on impossible to get recommendations into the final report that the lawyers would agree with who on almost every issue supported the status quo.

Getting issues into the issues paper so that people could understand a scenario for wholesale change wasn't allowed.

And when the lawyers did agree to change, it was on an issue that meant diddly squat, or close to it. Allowing registrations for periods other than 2 years is significant, but allowing more than names and nicknames in id.au is such an incremental step forward that it's questionable that it really changes anything.

As Josh says, or at least alludes to, real change comes on policy panels, and if domainers can't work together there, what hope is there of working together on the board to support an elected representative.

David

 

[neddy]

Does auDA condone this?

I'm posting this here, because it's relevant to domainers interests. I hope that our elected directors and other candidates will respond.

I saw (and got involved in) a thread in Flying Solo today. This is the link to it: http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/forums...ness-name-domain-already-use-5.html#post95896

In case the poster edits it, I have copied it here:

I make complaints about many websites now that I know how to do it

I don't want any of them, I am just sick and tired of the crap out there

I am sick of looking for something online to have a rubbish website with zip di doo content appearing high on the search results- I am positive I am not the only one

the only way to clean the web is not by waiting for google to fix their algorithms, but to remove the sites completely, the owners wont do it who will- the AU will if their is cause

So this is a guy who freely admits that he complains regularly to auDA if he doesn't think a site is relevant.

The legal system would refer to this sort of person as a "vexatious litigant".

Is this fair or a proper use of auDA resources?

 

[DomainNames]

I'm posting this here, because it's relevant to domainers interests. I hope that our elected directors and other candidates will respond.

I saw (and got involved in) a thread in Flying Solo today. This is the link to it: http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/forums...ness-name-domain-already-use-5.html#post95896

In case the poster edits it, I have copied it here:



So this is a guy who freely admits that he complains regularly to auDA if he doesn't think a site is relevant.

The legal system would refer to this sort of person as a "vexatious litigant".

Is this fair or a proper use of auDA resources?

a total waste of auDA resources... costs. What a jeolous Prick this fool must be..
Thankfully auDA probably has them on an email / complaint idiot delete ketyboard button. auDA is smarter now about these type of idiots

Many registrants probably would like to track him down. Wouldnt be hard to find out

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

So this is a guy who freely admits that he complains regularly to auDA if he doesn't think a site is relevant.

The legal system would refer to this sort of person as a "vexatious litigant".

Is this fair or a proper use of auDA resources?

These type of people are the perfect example of bad faith complainants. He needs to get used to living in a democracy where people can (within the bounds of the law) display whatever they like on their websites. Maybe he might want to move to North Korea or China where he could take on a role as an internet censor.

This guy would be the first to scream if someone restricted him from expressing himself on his own website.

This is also a by product of having a complaints based system in the form auDA currently has - you could stop people like this by doing 2 things, (which auDA should do), (a) impose a complaint fee; and (b) disclose his identity and a copy of his complaint to the domain registrant. These simple reforms would stamp this bad faith behaviour out.

 

[neddy]

a total waste of auDA resources... costs. What a jeolous Prick this fool must be..
Thankfully auDA probably has them on an email / complaint idiot delete ketyboard button. auDA is smarter now about these type of idiots

Unfortunately it seems as if they take notice of him. He brags about "people losing domains" by virtue of his complaints to auDA.

These type of people are the perfect example of bad faith complainants. He needs to get used to living in a democracy where people can (within the bounds of the law) display whatever they like on their websites. Maybe he might want to move to North Korea or China where he could take on a role as an internet censor.

This guy would be the first to scream if someone restricted him from expressing himself on his own website.

This is also a by product of having a complaints based system in the form auDA currently has - you could stop people like this by doing 2 things, (which auDA should do), (a) impose a complaint fee; and (b) disclose his identity and a copy of his complaint to the domain registrant. These simple reforms would stamp this bad faith behaviour out.

Totally agree Erhan - particularly the two suggestions you make. Nobody should be stopped from complaining if they feel justified, but a free anonymous complaint is just contrary to natural justice - and a take up of valuable resources.

Perhaps as a compromise, people should have to pay a fee - and if their complaint is upheld, they get it refunded. That would sort the wheat out from the chaff - but still allow fairness to prevail.

 

[DomainNames]

Lets hope our dntrade forum members and auDA board members Paul Levins and Joshrowe look into this and post a response what action they will take as auDA Board Members.. Still a few questions to them outstanding in this forum they have not answered after being elected

Come on Paul and Josh. Please stayed involved as you promised before the election!!

As auDA board members what action will you take on vexious complaints such as these posted and discussed by admin above?

 

[joshrowe]

So this is a guy who freely admits that he complains regularly to auDA if he doesn't think a site is relevant.

The legal system would refer to this sort of person as a "vexatious litigant".

Is this fair or a proper use of auDA resources?

Is there any data to show how many complaints this person has lodged and how many of these complaints have been accepted or rejected?

If there is evidence to demonstrate that this person is behaving "vexatiously" then that is something you should raise directly with auDA staff.

auDA staff may be aware of those who repeatedly complain without merit. However, I encourage you to bring it to auDA's attention anyhow.

 

[joshrowe]

At the AGM the rules on Proxies were changed. The changes to the rules were without notice and directly contrary to what the proxy forms represented to members. Very unfair.

If these changes didn't occur then in all likelihood I may have won due to the very small difference in votes between Paul and myself.

What are "the rules" you refer to?

Who changed "the rules"?

When were "the rules" changed?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Josh

What are "the rules" you refer to?

Who changed "the rules"?

When were "the rules" changed?

The Corporations Act 2001 allows for open proxies, which means where a member doesnt exercise a vote his/her proxy can exercise that member's vote. The proxy form reflects this in the explanatory statement. This is also the established practice at auDA AGMs. For example if a member lets say you Josh, appoint me as your proxy and dont vote on some resolutions or only tick one box for the election of Directors, then you expect and the law allows me to exercise the second vote for a Director or another resolution.

At the AGM (with no prior notice) I was told (by auDA's lawyers and auDA staff) that I could not exercise a second vote on behalf of the members who had given me their proxy, the same rule was also applied to another candidate. On the basis of what you have said it is obvious that you were not subject to the same unfair restriction.

The effect of this is that no other candidate could have exercised their second vote for me.

I think this is very unreasonable and unfair - it also serves to mislead auDA members. It also casts a shadow over the fairness of the election.

The current proxy form is misleading and must be rewritten in compliance with the law.

I trust this clarifies - I must also note that I have spoken to a number of board members who have indicated to me that they were unaware of the restrictions and what happened at the AGM.

 

[joshrowe]

Josh

The Corporations Act 2001 allows for open proxies, which means where a member doesnt exercise a vote his/her proxy can exercise that member's vote. The proxy form reflects this in the explanatory statement. This is also the established practice at auDA AGMs. For example if a member lets say you Josh, appoint me as your proxy and dont vote on some resolutions or only tick one box for the election of Directors, then you expect and the law allows me to exercise the second vote for a Director or another resolution.

What are the specific section(s) of the Corporations Act which describe these scenarios? Perhaps you can link to them directly on Austlii.

At the AGM (with no prior notice) I was told (by auDA's lawyers and auDA staff) that I could not exercise a second vote on behalf of the members who had given me their proxy, the same rule was also applied to another candidate.

The same "rules" applied to everyone.

What was the specific legal explanation given to you? Were any Corporations Act clauses and/or cases mentioned in your discussion?

On the basis of what you have said it is obvious that you were not subject to the same unfair restriction.

That is an incorrect assumption. The same "rules" applied to everyone.

The effect of this is that no other candidate could have exercised their second vote for me.

Are you describing the scenario where (for example) Simon was not able to direct the second votes to you on behalf of auDA members who voted for Simon only and gave Simon their proxy?

If that was your election strategy, why wasn't Simon (for example) upfront with auDA members to promote you as the second candidate?

I think this is very unreasonable and unfair - it also serves to mislead auDA members. It also casts a shadow over the fairness of the election.

The current proxy form is misleading and must be rewritten in compliance with the law.

If you feel strongly about this then I suggest you put your claims in writing to the auDA Chair (copy me on the correspondance if you like).

I trust this clarifies - I must also note that I have spoken to a number of board members who have indicated to me that they were unaware of the restrictions and what happened at the AGM.

I suggest you allow board members to speak for themselves. I know I do not appreciate others speaking on my behalf without permission.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

What are the specific section(s) of the Corporations Act which describe these scenarios? Perhaps you can link to them directly on Austlii.

PART 2G.2----MEETINGS OF MEMBERS OF COMPANIES is the part of the Act that deals with proxies.

What was the specific legal explanation given to you? Were any Corporations Act clauses and/or cases mentioned in your discussion?

The claimed basis of it was the Corporations Act s250BB(1), which is in fact irrelevant and was introduced as part of the directors remuneration reforms.

That is an incorrect assumption. The same "rules" applied to everyone.

From your initial response to me it appeared to me that you were unaware, is this the case ? Or are you saying you were aware ?

Are you describing the scenario where (for example) Simon was not able to direct the second votes to you on behalf of auDA members who voted for Simon only and gave Simon their proxy?

If that was your election strategy, why wasn't Simon (for example) upfront with auDA members to promote you as the second candidate?

I am describing a scenario where normally if you had people who had appointed you proxy but only voted for 1 person you could exercise the second vote. You or any other proxy holder may have voted for me but were prevented from doing so.

I didn't run with any other candidates, I ran my own campaign and the results prove that, so there was no strategy, but it did prevent you or Simon or Paul casting a vote for me

If you feel strongly about this then I suggest you put your claims in writing to the auDA Chair (copy me on the correspondance if you like).

Thanks I will, the form needs a complete rewrite.

I suggest you allow board members to speak for themselves. I know I do not appreciate others speaking on my behalf without permission.

No director spoke on your behalf, and I responded to your post so that I could hear your views, direct from you.

 

[GGroup]

At the AGM (with no prior notice) I was told (by auDA's lawyers and auDA staff) that I could not exercise a second vote on behalf of the members who had given me their proxy, the same rule was also applied to another candidate. On the basis of what you have said it is obvious that you were not subject to the same unfair restriction.

We are all equal but some are more equal than others.

 

[neddy]

Is there any data to show how many complaints this person has lodged and how many of these complaints have been accepted or rejected?

Josh, I'm sure auDA would tell me if I rang up and asked the question. Not.

If there is evidence to demonstrate that this person is behaving "vexatiously" then that is something you should raise directly with auDA staff.

auDA staff may be aware of those who repeatedly complain without merit. However, I encourage you to bring it to auDA's attention anyhow.

The only evidence I have is by his own admission (which I thought should be fairly compelling). I have posted his quote again from FlyingSolo (which has since been deleted, but I have a copy).

I make complaints about many websites now that I know how to do it

I don't want any of them, I am just sick and tired of the crap out there

I am sick of looking for something online to have a rubbish website with zip di doo content appearing high on the search results- I am positive I am not the only one

the only way to clean the web is not by waiting for google to fix their algorithms, but to remove the sites completely, the owners wont do it who will- the AU will if their is cause

And here are a couple of other excerpts from subsequent posts:

"If you break the rules, and I want the domain - I will complain there is nothing unethical about that."

"I am not going to buy a domain from anyone".

Josh, you are one of our elected Board Members. You gave us assurances leading up to the election that you would represent us and our interests. I believe this is clearly one such case that you should go in to bat for us on. You have the ability to make enquiries and get answers - we probably don't.

How about it?

Cheers, Ned

 

[Shane]

Josh, you are one of our elected Board Members. You gave us assurances leading up to the election that you would represent us and our interests. I believe this is clearly one such case that you should go in to bat for us on. You have the ability to make enquiries and get answers - we probably don't.

How about it?

+1

 

[DomainNames]

I see a few major media reporters have joined the forum recently.. Might be worth them researching and writing about some issues that have been raised ( and unanswered) here.

It's not just many of this forum members who feels things need looking at with the elections , voting , a need for an auDA Ombudsman etc.

 

[Victor]

What are the specific section(s) of the Corporations Act which describe these scenarios? Perhaps you can link to them directly on Austlii.

These 'scenarios' are standard practice for undirected proxies.

I appointed a proxy. It's pretty concerning that the auDA AGM deviated from this standard practice without having made it clear on the proxy form that only directed proxies would be counted.

The claimed basis of it was the Corporations Act s250BB(1), which is in fact irrelevant and was introduced as part of the directors remuneration reforms.

That's a frighteningly bad call. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that s 250BB deals specifically with directed proxies not undirected ones.

Why would auDA allow a shadow to be cast over its voting process by deviating from standard practice without notice and then seeking to justify this by pointing to a section of the Corps Act that is plainly irrelevant ...?

Surely auDA's company secretary, whoever s/he is, needs to get a handle on this.