Another Senior Exec Leaves auDA

[Scott.L]

✓ this

Firstly, auDA must prove that they dismissed the employee because they no longer required the person's job to be performed by anyone due to changes in the operational requirements of auDA. (company Secretariat - LOL)

Look at TAFE NSW v Pykett
There is no job or a position or other work within your enterprise (or that of an associated entity) to which it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the dismissed employee.

 

[DomainNames]

Has anyone else had enough yet of the auDA Saga?

We know the tip of the iceberg of the problems..and I would say "cover ups" seem to be a relevant term? auDA is certainly not transparent as per the auDA Constitution.

It's nearly a year after the last AGM and the promises of progress and less problems, increased accountability and transparency to all stakeholders, listening to members, more assessment if the proposed competing .au extension should even go ahead, complete farce about auDA building their own wholesale registry then going to tender again instead for more outsourcing with their tail between their legs etc.......

The Constitution still is being broken in many areas and I ask is it deliberate in some cases? https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/

The only way forward is a complete Government Senate Committee. Let's see all of the political parties raise some questions and try to fix the problem and let's all be able to watch it online!

Even auDA says the .au namespace is Australian Critical Infrastructure and a national asset. Something seriously needs changing is it people, management or process?

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senatean_Senate_committees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees​

Still no FOI updates which where due yesterday! Maybe trying to avoid this getting out before the auDA AGM or next Icann meeting?

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula
".au Historical Financial Irregularities

Ron Andruff made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Communications and the Arts


Response to this request is delayed. By law, Department of Communications and the Arts should normally have responded promptly and by October 16, 2017 (details) "​

 

[snoopy]

Firstly, auDA must prove that they dismissed the employee because they no longer required the person's job to be performed by anyone due to changes in the operational requirements of auDA. (company Secretariat - LOL)

Look at TAFE NSW v Pykett
There is no job or a position or other work within your enterprise (or that of an associated entity) to which it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the dismissed employee.

It is probably another expensive blunder for AUDA. How much money has been spent settling unfair dismissal claims I wonder?

 

[Scott.L]

It is probably another expensive blunder for AUDA. How much money has been spent settling unfair dismissal claims I wonder?

How can it be a 'genuine redundancy' when in the previous newsletter it clearly stated - Genevieve has joined auDA as a Policy/Secretariat Officer? My understanding is, If the role of Secretariat was made redundant because of organisational restructure then that role cannot be possibly filled.

 

[snoopy]

How can it be a 'genuine redundancy' when in the previous newsletter it clearly stated - Genevieve has joined auDA as a Policy/Secretariat Officer? My understanding is, If the role of Secretariat was made redundant because of organisational restructure then that role cannot be possibly filled.

It is just all part of the same. Everyone getting the boot. Nothing wrong here, 92% annual staff turnover is normal.

 

[Data Glasses]

It is just all part of the same. Everyone getting the boot. Nothing wrong here, 92% annual staff turnover is normal.

LOL

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I understand the LOL but let me tell you this isn't a laughing matter.

Real people and their families have been seriously impacted financially and emotionally and tossed aside with a remarkable contempt.

It really shows the colours of those behind it.

 

[PaulS]

I understand the LOL but let me tell you this isn't a laughing matter.

Real people and their families have been seriously impacted financially and emotionally and tossed aside with a remarkable contempt.

It really shows the colours of those behind it.

Thank you.
Yours is a very short statement but touching and meaningful for many of us that have been "collateral damage" over the last year.
It is greatly appreciated.

Referring back to earlier comments, I want to be clear that my eventual settlement with auDA was through the WorkCover process. I take some solace that my "payout" is from the coffers of auDA's insurers and not from the pockets of domain registrants. It has been a long year, their insurers and the lawyers were rabid, and the $ is still to land in my account (that's a lot of two-minute noodles). But I am glad it is over and I am not "gagged" by any agreements.

Oh, and dont worry about the "LOL" - I took it as a wry and sardonic response in hard times.
After all, if you dont laugh, you cry.
We will have enough of the latter tomorrow when we farewell one of our colleagues that didn't manage to move on to another career.

 

[DomainNames]

Thank you.
Yours is a very short statement but touching and meaningful for many of us that have been "collateral damage" over the last year.
It is greatly appreciated.

Referring back to earlier comments, I want to be clear that my eventual settlement with auDA was through the WorkCover process. I take some solace that my "payout" is from the coffers of auDA's insurers and not from the pockets of domain registrants. It has been a long year, their insurers and the lawyers were rabid, and the $ is still to land in my account (that's a lot of two-minute noodles). But I am glad it is over and I am not "gagged" by any agreements.

Oh, and dont worry about the "LOL" - I took it as a wry and sardonic response in hard times.
After all, if you dont laugh, you cry.
We will have enough of the latter tomorrow when we farewell one of our colleagues that didn't manage to move on to another career.

Good on you for posting.

You raise a good point about auDA Insurance premiums..I wonder if they have gone up with more claims..... it is the .au domain name registrant consumers who ends up paying for these type of auDA expenses.

 

[PaulS]

Good on you for posting.

You raise a good point about auDA Insurance premiums..I wonder if they have gone up with more claims..... it is the .au domain name registrant consumers who ends up paying for these type of auDA expenses.

Very true and I nearly noted that expressly. But I would have been really torn if it was me vs auDA directly. Agreed, premium hikes are an unfair burden. Direct financial settlements are completely different in scale.

 

[DomainNames]

Very true and I nearly noted that expressly. But I would have been really torn if it was me vs auDA directly. Agreed, premium hikes are an unfair burden. Direct financial settlements are completely different in scale.

It would be great for you to start posting all of what you know about auDA from your many years of inside knowledge.... Most stakeholders and auDA members only seem to find out on this forum or on www.domainer.com.au .... we certainly do not learn much from the highly secretive overly censored minutes. PR media releases, statements or newsletters of spin.

 

[PaulS]

It would be great for you to start posting all of what you know about auDA from your many years of inside knowledge.... Most stakeholders and auDA members only seem to find out on this forum or on www.domainer.com.au .... we certainly do not learn much from the highly secretive overly censored minutes. PR media releases, statements or newsletters of spin.

Thanks for that - I will offer input where I can, when I can.
But as I mentioned, my insight is 12 months old and I will largely be limited to commenting about "how things used to be".
I admit that was a flawed beast, but perhaps offering a contrast with today will occasionally prove useful.

 

[DomainNames]

Thanks for that - I will offer input where I can, when I can.
But as I mentioned, my insight is 12 months old and I will largely be limited to commenting about "how things used to be".
I admit that was a flawed beast, but perhaps offering a contrast with today will occasionally prove useful.

Paul, Did you join as an auDA member and in supply or demand? I hope to see you vote for the right people along with all those you know who can also vote who joined via jumping through the hoops to get membership passed. By voting you can at least make a statement with some possible positive feeling If you joined as a Supply member I would love your vote and if you joined in Demand please consider seriously voting for Nicole and Ned.

 

[Data Glasses]

Oh, and dont worry about the "LOL" - I took it as a wry and sardonic response in hard times.
After all, if you dont laugh, you cry..

It was Snoopy's comment .. '92% annual staff turnover is normal' that I found amusing
Obviously no-one likes to see people lose their jobs, aka Ford, Toyota, Holden .... etc
I guess that's why JobForLife is available to register .....

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I wasn't having a go at you Rod. Sorry if it appeared that way.

I just wanted to highlight the human cost.

 

[findtim]

i think everyone who knows rod knows he doesn't have a mean bone in his body

 

[Data Glasses]

i think everyone who knows rod knows he doesn't have a mean bone in his body

Perhaps when I am playing some metal guitar a bit sneaks out ......ummm

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I think we have that on video ;-)

 

[Data Glasses]

I think we have that on video ;-)
"please note metal has changed a little .......

"