we are doing it the right way, whilst noting your suggests from the sgm.
if we were to appoint anyone without a due process you wouldn't/shouldn't like it, true?
you'll notice it isn't a long drawn out process with applications closing monday 4pm.
i honestly think you need to give us a tick on this one and then we can work towards accessing the suggested alternatives.
tim
Applicants with demonstrated company director experience are particularly encouraged to nominate.
it is a casual vacancy and they will need to go to election at the agm
tim
@snoopy - hammer; nail; head (as usual).I know that, what I am saying is AUDA is finding a replacement for the original elected director. It is not about AUDA finding someone they like, it is about what members would want. They are replacing on behalf of those demand members.
The stuff about "Applicants with demonstrated company director experience are particularly encouraged to nominate." is absolute garbage. That is more of the same that got us into this mess.
thats right, anyone can stand for election, even non members, speaking as a member and not a director i agree that elected member director vacancies should go once again to a vote but thats not the case right now and as everyone has said in the past " its not in the constitution " so we have to read it that way and not switch it when it suits .
thats right, anyone can stand for election, even non members, speaking as a member and not a director i agree that elected member director vacancies should go once again to a vote but thats not the case right now and as everyone has said in the past " its not in the constitution " so we have to read it that way and not switch it when it suits .
enough from me on this i think, you'll only have to wait till tuesday for an outcome.
tim
PS @DomainNames, you'll have to wait another year for me.
Some good points raised @DomainNames. Whilst the Board and CEO are always quick to point out all the supposedly good things they have achieved over the past 18 months, the fact is, a lot of disappointing things have also happened. The primary thing that was forgotten (imo) was that auDA is a membership organisation. It took concerned members to bring them back to reality....Some Directors said they where voting one way at Board meetings and standing up putting forward members concerns but the recently released minutes seem to show Erhan was the only one on record for a few things like getting Board Minutes back etc....That seems to be different to what 2 Board members claimed when they said they where the only ones who wanted Board minutes back... This is why Board minutes are sometimes useful even though people are understandably skeptical they are actually full & accurate.
A lot of trust has been lost between members and auDA/ auDA Board. I would not be calling for pats on the back yet for you, auDA or the Board.
Most of this mess could have been avoided, auDA and the Board created it! It must have cost paying .au registrants a fortune or wasted auDA funds ( .au domain name registrant money).
My suggestion to Tim for any future discussions (that he disagrees with) is to make sure he asks the Company Secretary to record his position on the Minutes. The rest of the Board and CEO won't like that.
I also privately urged Tim to do so - because these sort of things have a habit of eventually coming out (as they have done now). You need to show where you stand - otherwise, be prepared to cop the criticism.
enough from me on this i think, you'll only have to wait till tuesday for an outcome.
tim
PS @DomainNames, you'll have to wait another year for me.
Did Michaella give a reason for her resignation?
i'm going to hope you meant you don't trust the board and not you just you don't trust ME ?we don't trust you.