auDA Forensic Accounting "PPB Investigation and Report" release
- Thread starter DomainNames
- Start date
DomainNames
Top Contributor
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/
"3.2 Activities
Without reducing the effect of clause 4, auDA will see to achieve its principal purposes as set out in clause 3.1 through:
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;
g. ensuring its operations produce timely outputs which are relevant to the needs of the Australian Internet Community.
(Amended by Special Resolution, 14 August 2006)"
DomainNames
Top Contributor
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula"From: FOI
Department of Communications and the Arts
September 21, 2017
image001.png
2K Download
image002.gif
0K Download
UNCLASSIFIED
FOI 20-1718
Dear Mr Andruff
I refer to your email dated 15 September 2017 outlining a request for access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to: …
• a copy of the PPB Report;
• copies of any findings or reports relating to "the
under-reporting of FBT to the ATO" as noted in item 4(a) of the minutes of
the Board meeting held on 13 February 2017;
• internal meeting minutes or any other record (in any form)
of matters discussed at in-camera discussions held during auDA's board
meeting on 24 March 2016 relating to the termination of the ex-CEO Chris
Disspain (excluding the board minutes dated 24 March 2016 which are
published on the auDA website); and
• copies of any reports or other records relating to expenses
incurred by the ex-CEO Chris Disspain during the period(s) the subject of
the PPB Review and rational for extensive international travel and
explanation of benefit to auDA and the Australian public in general …”
Timeframe for receiving your decision:
Please note that we will process your request in accordance with the
Department’s [1]FOI Policy and that the 30 day statutory period for
processing the request commenced on 16 September 2017. You should
therefore expect a decision from us by 15 October 2017. The period of 30
days may be extended in certain circumstances. We will advise you if
there is any extension of time.
Scope of request:
If it emerges that the scope of the request is unclear or is too large for
processing, the Department will contact you to discuss re-scoping the
request.
Charges:
Please note that it is the Department’s policy to issue charges for
processing FOI requests and that we will advise you of the estimated
charges when we are in a position to estimate the resources required to
process the request.
Timing of release:
As the subject matter of the request will require the Department to upload
any documents released to you to the Department’s FOI Disclosure Log, I
take this opportunity to advise you that the Department’s policy is to
upload documents to the disclosure log on the same day as or as soon as
practicable after the documents are released. More information on the
Department’s disclosure log is available in the FOI Policy.
Personal Information:
Your personal information has been collected by the Department as a result
of your correspondence, and will be used in order to process the FOI
request. Personal information is protected by law, including the Privacy
Act 1988. The Department’s [2]Privacy Policy is available on the website
and contains information about access to or correction of your personal
information, and how you may complain about a breach of your privacy.
Please note that if we need to consult with other people regarding release
of the requested documents, we may need to disclose your personal
information. When we consult with other people about the request, it may
be apparent to those people that you have made a request, even if we do
not disclose your identity. If you have concerns about the Department
consulting with other people about the request, please let us know about
these concerns.
Yours sincerely,
[3]cid:C4234CC5-D32A-44FF-A754-F96227B373F7
FOI Coordinator / Information Law Section / Office of the General
Counsel
Department of Communications and the Arts
P +61 2 6271 1277
E [Department of Communications and the Arts request email]
GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601
[4]communications.gov.au
[5]cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A
[6]@CommsAu
[7]arts.gov.au
[8]cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A [9]@artsculturegov "
From: Carl English
November 03, 2017
image001.png30K Download
Our reference: RQ17/02088
Agency reference: FOI 20-1718
Mr Ron Andruff
By email: [FOI #4091 email]
Dear Mr Andruff
Extension of time under s 15AB
On 3 November 2017, the Department of Communications and the Arts (the
Department) applied for further time to make a decision on your FOI
request of 15 September 2017.
This application was on the basis that the processing period is
insufficient to deal adequately with your request, because it is complex.
Decision
I have decided to grant the Department an extension of time to process
your request to 19 November 2017. This decision has been made under s
15AB(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
By granting further time it is anticipated that the Department will
provide a well-reasoned and better managed decision.
Contact
If you have any questions regarding this email please contact me on (02)
9284 9745 or via email [email address]. Please quote OAIC
reference number RQ17/02088 in all correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Carl English | Assistant Review and Investigation Officer | Freedom of
Information Dispute Resolution
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001| [1]www.oaic.gov.au
Phone: +61 2 9284 9745 | E-mail: [email address]
Protecting information rights – advancing information policy
[2]cid:image001.png@01D26682.9CE52410
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
snoopy
Top Contributor
Interesting article about all this here, sounds like more whisper campaigns from Collins St.
http://domainincite.com/22248-icann...s-on-directors-amid-concerns-about-vice-chair
http://domainincite.com/22248-icann...s-on-directors-amid-concerns-about-vice-chair
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Maybe releasing the information here will shed some light on the investigations and reports done
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula
snoopy
Top Contributor
Let see what happens, whether AUDA continues to spread gossip in the shadows or if they will release the real facts.
snoopy
Top Contributor
Comment on twitter recently on this, perhaps talk of "police", Dispain rumours, anonymous emails to DomainIncite only done for political point scoring?
https://twitter.com/AdrianKinderis/status/1014302229891674112
https://twitter.com/AdrianKinderis/status/1014302229891674112
Scott.L
Top Contributor
...but they’ve come from sources who refuse to identify themselves or provide corroborating evidence. Despite efforts, I’ve been unable to independently verify these anonymous claims, which come amid turbulent times for auDA and its members, so I’ve chosen not to repeat them.
interesting
DomainNames
Top Contributor
https://www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=26272
auDA Using Bullying and Fear to Silence Critics
Posted in: Domain Names at 12/04/2018 15:16
In an inflammatory email Tuesday night, auDA Chair Chris Leptos sent out an email boasting of his achievements while including a threat to all former Board members that they may have been referred to the Victorian Police due to certain “practices”. The email follows less than a week on from auDA Members under Grumpier.com.au demanding a second Special General Meeting in 9 months to remove the Chair (again), the 2 other independent Directors and a vote of no-confidence in the CEO.
In his email, a “150 Day Report”, to members Leptos wrote “in my first week as Independent Chair I was briefed on a number of practices of several former auDA Directors. Your Board concluded that those practices warranted referral to the Victoria Police. As you would appreciate, it is not appropriate at this stage to provide further details regarding this matter.” As I’m a “former auDA Director”, albeit for only 2 years, as is one of the trio behind grumpier.com.au (Josh Rowe, but for 14 years), one has to wonder whether this is being used to intimidate and silence critics. It is understood that the “investigation” has seen auDA gunning for not only former Directors but also former senior management.
The announcement is inflammatory and comes at a time when the organisation is fighting fires on several fronts, including the Grumpier.com.au campaign. The language and tone used reflect an organisation and its key personnel under fire. It’s also interesting that as the Chair of the Board Leptos has sought to take responsibility for the achievements listed in the email, rather than the Board or organisation doing so. Mentioning the widely rumoured investigation that auDA has been driving to discredit previous staff, and now it seems former Directors, at such a time, and that it has been referred to Victorian Police, is widely viewed as inflammatory. Further, Leptos has known about the investigation into former auDA staff and Directors since he was appointed in October, so why has he chosen to go public with it now?
One person auDA, the .au policy and regulatory body, has been gunning for, for reasons unknown but perhaps linked to the Victorian Police referral, is former CEO and now ICANN Vice Chair Chris Disspain. Domain Pulse has heard from several sources the current CEO Cameron Boardman has been seen engaged in long conversations with Ron Andruff, who also allegedly appears to have a vendetta against Disspain (Right to Know), in the corridors of recent ICANN meetings. It can only be speculated what may have been discussed, and Domain Pulse welcomes both Boardman and Andruff to set the record straight to end the whispers floating ‘in the ether’.
Domain Pulse also understands Boardman has made allegations about Disspain to other ccTLD (country code top level domain) managers at the ICANN Copenhagen meeting in March 2017. Sources have told Domain Pulse Boardman has made these allegations to discredit the CEO, but his attempts have fallen on deaf ears due to the lack of any substantiation of these claims.
Now with their feet facing the fire and an upcoming SGM to vote on removing the Chair and independent Directors, one can wonder if it’s a coincidence that former Directors are now being brought into the firing line, particularly as one of the 3 SGM proponents is a past Director.
Then there’s the Policy Review Panel, a panel formed with an inadequate number of members (6 plus the Chair John Swinson). On 9 April it was announced Demand Class representative Luke Summers had resigned from the panel leaving only 3 representatives. In his resignation letter, Summers wrote he no longer has “confidence that the Panel can proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the Australian internet community”. Summer outlines his concerns regarding the “entirely inappropriate” size and composition of the Panel and the lack of business representation “exacerbated by the recent departure of Paul Zawa.”
The number was boosted to 4 with the appointment of Nicola Seaton, a General Counsel and Company Secretary for Canstar, a leading finance comparison site, has been appointed as a Peak Business Body representative. One would have hoped auDA would have appointed someone with recent experience in domain names on such a policy formation committee. The PRP has been plagued by resignations, poor attendance and limited output. Quorums have been hard to come by.
Registrars are equally non-plussed with auDA and Domain Pulse has been told a number had signed the Grumpier.com.au petition to call for the SGM. There’s been discontentment among registrars with the process under which Afilias won the registry tender due to a lack of consultation. It must be noted that while the process that led to the decision has come under fire, and disappointment that Neustar lost, registrars are not opposed to change.
Some registrars have given Domain Pulse detailed information on their problems with auDA, but none are prepared to go on the record, not even to be quoted off-the-record. Registrars fear, as one registrar said, ‘we’re in a small pond and there are so few [auDA-accredited] registrars that it would be easy enough for auDA to work out who said what.’
And now with the dissatisfaction, auDA members are gunning for another Special General Meeting. The Grumpier.com.au team gained enough support (5% of members) for the proposed SGM within hours. The ball’s now in auDA’s court but they have 21 days to say whether they agree to the SGM. Going by Leptos’ email to Members the meeting will be happening. “I will be writing to you further in relation to this development once the logistics for the meeting have been confirmed,” Leptos wrote in his email overnight. Now it’s a matter of whether all resolutions will be able to be voted on.
* Domain Pulse welcomes comments from auDA re any of the above issues. As per previous correspondence with auDA they have advised they “don’t usually reply to requests for blog stories” and have refused previous requests for comment.
* Disclaimer: the writer was an auDA Board member (2005 to 2007), served on 3 auDA Names Policy Panels (2007, 2010 and 2015), was a supplier to auDA for 14 years and is now a supplier to Neustar providing online media monitoring services.
