Nicole Murdoch
Regular Member
As most of you know I am running for election as a Demand Class Director for auDA. I was running with Shane but this week Shane, for personal reasons pulled out of the race. Ned has decided to run and we are running together.
That announcement was made this week and rather that taking thunder from Ned I thought I would allow Ned some time to make his announcement and enjoy it. That should not be seen as silence from me because it is not. It is simply respect and letting a man have his moment.
I also believe that to achieve an outcome you have to look at multiple options and solutions. I love the DNTrade and Domainer community and I read the posts daily. But it has occurred to me that whilst we can all comment and discuss the issues that is not working to address all issues. auDA picks and chooses the issues it wants to address whilst ignoring (at least publicly) the issues it does not.
I watched a great movie recently. The take away quote was - I tried doing nothing but that didn't work.
Well, in respect of the membership issue, I tried complaining to auDA and that didn't work, I tried addressing the issue on DNTrade and Domainer but that didn't work. So it was time to try something different.
With no action from auDA in respect of the membership processing debacle (and complete silence from auDA), this week I wrote to the Minister of Communications with a detailed complaint based on auDA refusing, either deliberately or otherwise, to process memberships. The complaint also addressed the issue of the appointment of a Supply Class Director as Chairperson when there is/was an independent director who took the role, when there as adoption of the requirement of the Chair to be independent and, most importantly, the chairperson himself should know of that requirement given that he was the one that tabled the report that was (most) adopted.
I also want to point out the odd wording of the minutes which delayed the processing of memberships due to "abnormalities". If you read those minutes what you discover is that there is no actual allegation of abnormalities in the membership applications. Rather the minutes say that "any" abnormalities need to be investigated.
I have asked the Minister to have the memberships processed. I have stated that if there are abnormalities then they must allow potential members to address those abnormalities. Once they are accepted then each of the memberships need to be retrospectively applied to the date of membership application or, preferably, to the date of whatever the next board meeting was.
Lets face it, if memberships aren't processed then those people cannot vote and thus the Board is, by not processing memberships, affecting voting. That in turn affects the composition of the Board.
On the issue of the Chair that also needs to be addressed. We need to know if the independent was offered the position. Why wasn't the now chair required to resign as supply director to be appointed as independent? There was an independent position available. If there was a good reason then let us hear it.
Also, does anyone else find the timing of the board meetings odd. For example the latest resignation meeting started at 9am and ended at after 3pm. The resignation was accepted early in the day. So what was discussed that whole time? Certainly they weren't processing memberships.
On a slight other note one of the issues with the Constitution and one issue that is fueling the current problems is that whilst independent's can be appointed there is requirement to fill those positions. So we find ourselves in the current position, one independent with two independent positions vacant. This is yet another way the Board can control its own composition.
I have also given a copy of the Minister's email to the Minister's representative for auDA and given auDA a copy. I have requested a response from auDA within 7 days. That response needs to fully address the issues of membership and the chair position.
I will give an update.
In the meantime, please everyone tell me what they think of how memberships should now be handled. Also, I want to push for changes to the Constitution to require the independent positions to be filled within a time period. Do you agree? How should that happen? What time period is fair?
That announcement was made this week and rather that taking thunder from Ned I thought I would allow Ned some time to make his announcement and enjoy it. That should not be seen as silence from me because it is not. It is simply respect and letting a man have his moment.
I also believe that to achieve an outcome you have to look at multiple options and solutions. I love the DNTrade and Domainer community and I read the posts daily. But it has occurred to me that whilst we can all comment and discuss the issues that is not working to address all issues. auDA picks and chooses the issues it wants to address whilst ignoring (at least publicly) the issues it does not.
I watched a great movie recently. The take away quote was - I tried doing nothing but that didn't work.
Well, in respect of the membership issue, I tried complaining to auDA and that didn't work, I tried addressing the issue on DNTrade and Domainer but that didn't work. So it was time to try something different.
With no action from auDA in respect of the membership processing debacle (and complete silence from auDA), this week I wrote to the Minister of Communications with a detailed complaint based on auDA refusing, either deliberately or otherwise, to process memberships. The complaint also addressed the issue of the appointment of a Supply Class Director as Chairperson when there is/was an independent director who took the role, when there as adoption of the requirement of the Chair to be independent and, most importantly, the chairperson himself should know of that requirement given that he was the one that tabled the report that was (most) adopted.
I also want to point out the odd wording of the minutes which delayed the processing of memberships due to "abnormalities". If you read those minutes what you discover is that there is no actual allegation of abnormalities in the membership applications. Rather the minutes say that "any" abnormalities need to be investigated.
I have asked the Minister to have the memberships processed. I have stated that if there are abnormalities then they must allow potential members to address those abnormalities. Once they are accepted then each of the memberships need to be retrospectively applied to the date of membership application or, preferably, to the date of whatever the next board meeting was.
Lets face it, if memberships aren't processed then those people cannot vote and thus the Board is, by not processing memberships, affecting voting. That in turn affects the composition of the Board.
On the issue of the Chair that also needs to be addressed. We need to know if the independent was offered the position. Why wasn't the now chair required to resign as supply director to be appointed as independent? There was an independent position available. If there was a good reason then let us hear it.
Also, does anyone else find the timing of the board meetings odd. For example the latest resignation meeting started at 9am and ended at after 3pm. The resignation was accepted early in the day. So what was discussed that whole time? Certainly they weren't processing memberships.
On a slight other note one of the issues with the Constitution and one issue that is fueling the current problems is that whilst independent's can be appointed there is requirement to fill those positions. So we find ourselves in the current position, one independent with two independent positions vacant. This is yet another way the Board can control its own composition.
I have also given a copy of the Minister's email to the Minister's representative for auDA and given auDA a copy. I have requested a response from auDA within 7 days. That response needs to fully address the issues of membership and the chair position.
I will give an update.
In the meantime, please everyone tell me what they think of how memberships should now be handled. Also, I want to push for changes to the Constitution to require the independent positions to be filled within a time period. Do you agree? How should that happen? What time period is fair?
