auDA Board Elections

[David Goldstein]

On to another area of the recent auDA board elections, there was a call for term limits on board members. Originally I thought this idea had merit, but I now think otherwise.

One of the benefits of my extended European travels, one of which I am just commencing, is I take a bundle of unread The Economists and catch up on what I've missed. In one edition (17 September), there is an article on corporate governance.

In referring to Yahoo, they interview someone from GMI, a corporate-governance ratings firm who says of the Yahoo board that they are something of a model board with an independent chairman and a good mix of long-serving and new directors.

The article goes on to mention that there is a growing demand for boards to undergo a formal evaluation process, to assess both the performance of each individual board member and how they work together as a group.

So thinking about this further I do not believe, and the evidence backs this up, that putting in stone term limits is beneficial. What is beneficial is having the board be more accountable.

David

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Hi David

While I appreciate your views, I think the auDA Board needs to be looked at in a different light, as it is board of a not for profit organisation.

In a commercial endeavour where the aim is to achieve the greatest return for shareholders, you may be right in your view, and especially using your example of Yahoo.

I have always supported a limit on terms for auDA Board members - as the au space operates on a multi stake holder model, diversity of views and experience is critical to the board. Unfortunately the demand class has been represented by the same group Directors for 10 years, this does not encourage diversity of views and experience.

A limit on Directors terms will ensure that different people from different backgrounds can have an opportunity to contribute and bring new views and experience. I believe that this diversity can only serve to strengthen the effectiveness of the auDA Board.

This leads to the next question, what should those time limits be ? If the time limit is to short then it doesn't effectively give a director an opportunity to see through new ideas and reforms, but equally if it is to long it risks making directors stale and complacent.

It is a debate that we really need to have in the .au space, I am hopeful that the Westlake review of auDA will recommend this. Once this report is released I believe that there will be many issues that we will all examine and debate.

 

[David Goldstein]

Hi Erhan,

I'd be hopeful that the Westlake review does look at how the board is composed. But instead of term limits it might be better to look at encouraging new people. On the demand side, it is problematic that 3 of the 4 positions have not changed for quite some time. It is also the case that in some years there has not been an election as there were only two nominees. I don't know how often this has happened though.

I still support the views of the corporate governance expert, but I also believe there are other ways to have some change.

DG

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Hi Erhan,

I'd be hopeful that the Westlake review does look at how the board is composed. But instead of term limits it might be better to look at encouraging new people. On the demand side, it is problematic that 3 of the 4 positions have not changed for quite some time. It is also the case that in some years there has not been an election as there were only two nominees. I don't know how often this has happened though.

I still support the views of the corporate governance expert, but I also believe there are other ways to have some change.

DG

I don't only support term limits but I agree that there may be other things that need to be examined as part of the review process.

There are other critical issues such as how elections are administered, for example maybe the Australian Electoral Commission could run auDA elections (like they do for unions and employer groups) and whether elections could be run online. Also issues such as how policy panels are composed and run (I know that you support reform in this area as well).

Lets wait and see what Richard Westlake says in his report, from my meetings with him I am hopeful that he will address some of these issues that we are discussing here.

I am informed by auDA that the report will be published on their website early next year.

 

[neddy]

Lets wait and see what Richard Westlake says in his report, from my meetings with him I am hopeful that he will address some of these issues that we are discussing here.

I am informed by auDA that the report will be published on their website early next year.

Just got an email from Jo Lim at auDA advising that they have published the report etc.

It is here: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15122011b/

The review's overall conclusions were that:

1. auDA’s operational model is regarded as working well, especially when benchmarked against international comparators: since auDA began managing the .au domain, the Internet in Australia has never failed;
   
   
2. Although auDA is generally well respected, relationships with some of its key stakeholder groups could be enhanced;
   
   
3. No fundamental changes to the governance of the .au domain or auDA's structure is necessary, but several changes were recommended that the reviewers consider will address identified issues, mainly in the areas of:
   
   * auDA's Accountability & Transparency;
   
   * auDA's Relationship with the Commonwealth Government; and
   
   *The Governance of auDA.
   

What do you all think?

 

[joshrowe]

I started a new thread to discuss the Westlake report over here: http://www.dntrade.com.au/outcomes-independent-review-into-governance-t4332.html

 

[Designer]

The elected representatives and some others have gone quiet now that the election is over. Didn't they promise to stay involved?

 

[joshrowe]

The elected representatives and some others have gone quiet now that the election is over. Didn't they promise to stay involved?

I'm still here, albeit pretty busy & working long hours on a new start up company.

 

[DomainNames]

Any news on the auDA Ombudsman yet? Has it been raised at any auDA meetings and what is the progress?

 

[brettf]

Any news on the auDA Ombudsman yet? Has it been raised at any auDA meetings and what is the progress?

I was on the board in 2005-2007. During that time it was proposed that there be an independent ombudsman put in place for a number of reasons, including complaint or review regarding unilateral determinations that auDA make (inc adverse findings for registrants and domain deletions and adverse findings against registrars such as the Bottle domains issue)

It's now 2012. I wouldn't be holding my breath.

 

[DomainNames]

I was on the board in 2005-2007. During that time it was proposed that there be an independent ombudsman put in place for a number of reasons, including complaint or review regarding unilateral determinations that auDA make (inc adverse findings for registrants and domain deletions and adverse findings against registrars such as the Bottle domains issue)

It's now 2012. I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Does the Government need to be more involved and get this put into place?

 

[brettf]

Does the Government need to be more involved and get this put into place?

The Government very recently was pushing for all domain registrations to require a 100 point ID check much like opening a bank account.

Do you really want more Government interaction in the space? IMO for the domainer community it's about the worst thing that could happen.

Not withstanding that, prior to the Westlake report, which you know my opinion on, there was a similar report into .au conducted by DCITA which is the Govenment agency under which auDA is empowered to run the name space. Pretty much same outcome as the Westlake report.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So what would it take to get a DNTrade approved domainer elected to auDA?

 

[neddy]

So what would it take to get a DNTrade approved domainer elected to auDA?

If you read through some of the earlier posts, you can see we tried hard last year, and came very close. Erhan just missed out.

This year, we're going to have to work a lot harder and smarter - and I believe if we do, we'll be successful this year.

Will keep you posted!
.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Yes I was disappointed, that Erhan just missed out and that you didn't nominate either ;-)

Hence my noting that it's exactly 6 months to go before the AGM.

Should be plenty of time to organise an auDA recruitment drive and to settle on the best two candidates to endorse?

 

[neddy]

Yes I was disappointed, that Erhan just missed out and that you didn't nominate either ;-)

Re Erhan - lots of us were disappointed.

Re "me" - I was considering nominating last year, but if I had of, it would have possibly split the vote too much between Erhan, Simon and myself.

But this year is a different story. At this stage, I intend to run and represent our community here (details to follow soonish).

I'm a great believer in the adage that "it is better to be inside the tent pissing out; than outside pissing in".

In other words it is easier (imho) to get some changes by working from within. That's why I involve myself in auDA's working groups and panels.
It's a great experience, and you get the chance to meet some interesting people, whilst putting forward perspectives from a domainer's point of view.
(Though that does not necessarily equate to the Board agreeing!).

.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

At this stage, I intend to run and represent our community here (details to follow soonish).

That's excellent news

 

[johno69]

I'm a great believer in the adage that "it is better to be inside the tent pissing out; then outside pissing in".

Why would you do both?

 

[neddy]

Why would you do both?

Ha ha Paul - you always catch me out on my grammar or spelling!

Of course I meant "than" instead of "then".

Thanks for pointing it out.

So it should read:

I'm a great believer in the adage that "it is better to be inside the tent pissing out; than outside pissing in".
.

 

[GGroup]

Re "me" - I was considering nominating last year, but if I had of, it would have possibly split the vote too much between Erhan, Simon and myself.

But this year is a different story. At this stage, I intend to run and represent our community here (details to follow soonish).

Just to play devil's advocate. If we (the royal 'we') missed out by a small margin, last time, would having three candidates maybe dilute a stronger chance (more voters/awareness) we would have otherwise had remaining with just two candidates this time?

I'm not for or against anyone in particular (Erhan, Simon or yourself) running. Just wondering...