2017 Board Elections

[neddy]

@snoopy, I'm not critical of Demand Class members who sought or seek to get additional legitimate memberships. Why? Because it comes down to the old adage - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Many of us who got together earlier this year decided that was the best course of action. Encourage more people with an interest in domains to become members. That was the only way we were going to get change at auDA.

These can obviously include family members - e.g. my eldest son Luke is Director of Domain Syndicates and eTrading and he works in the industry. My wife is 100% shareholder of those companies and she also has her own domains. And I obviously have my own business and personal memberships. So those are all fair and reasonable - just like Lemon's.

If my dog Scooby was still alive, I reckon he should qualify for honorary non-voting membership - he still has his own website!

 

[Cheyne]

Why? Because it comes down to the old adage - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Many of us who got together earlier this year decided that was the best course of action.

I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with this, as it goes against everything most people here are fighting against... doesn't it?

As I think I said to you in our call the other day, I could actively encourage every member of my team to become paid-up audDA members and vote for me, and that would almost guarantee me a position. But are we really comfortable with this sort of thing going on? This is why I believe the whole membership model is broken and needs a complete overhaul.

I appreciation your good intentions but I'm just not sure that something like this should be dealt with by any means necessary. Because let's face it, even if you are successfully elected to the board, you're going to be bound by non-disclosure much the same Tim is and you're answers back to the people who voted for you will be much the same as his are now; generic statements alluding to something being done but not able to say how, why or when.

It's going to be a tricky tight rope to walk.

 

[snoopy]

Letter sent to AUDA today regarding the legality of the special resolution and other matters, will be interesting to to see if AUDA has had their lawyers check this or not, as stated they cannot put a legally invalid resolution to members.

https://www.domainer.com.au/letter-to-the-auda-board/

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

This is why I believe the whole membership model is broken and needs a complete overhaul.
.... Because let's face it, even if you are successfully elected to the board, you're going to be bound by non-disclosure much the same Tim is and you're answers back to the people who voted for you will be much the same as his are now; generic statements alluding to something being done but not able to say how, why or when.

Fixing the problem is what Ned and I intend to achieve. Part of the problem is that "generic statement" that tells us little. The Board decides what information to release so at least with three of us (Ned, Tim and I) on the board pushing for transparency the information may flow. But it is a Board decision and if I am elected I will honour my obligations to auDA.

 

[eBranding.com.au]

This is why I believe the whole membership model is broken and needs a complete overhaul.

Agreed, the current model is a joke.

Some 'back of the napkin' calculations quickly show the issues with vote stacking. I'm not going to name people or point fingers, but it's pretty obvious once you make a few connections between people/entities.

I made this comment to someone else, so I'm going to be lazy and recycle it here:
"Hopefully, in the future auDA Membership will be much broader, so that stacking no longer has any measurable impact on who is elected (or not elected). Removing the Demand/Supply class distinction would be a good start, as would expanding the membership base (e.g. opt-in, free Membership for every registrant, limited to one Membership per individual/entity)."

 

[Cheyne]

Fixing the problem is what Ned and I intend to achieve.

This is what Tim already says, so how do you intend on doing anything different to what he already has?

The Board decides what information to release so at least with three of us (Ned, Tim and I) on the board pushing for transparency the information may flow. But it is a Board decision and if I am elected I will honour my obligations to auDA.

If I'm reading this statement correctly, and please correct me if I am not, but essentially you're giving no guarantees that yourself and Ned will be able to make any changes, that information may flow, but at the end of the day you will do exactly what you are told as per the board?

I get that for some, particularly those that frequent these forums, it may be simply a case of "better the devil you know", but for many like myself who don't really know either of you from a bar of Lux, how do we know that we're not going to get more of the same?

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Agreed, the current model is a joke.

And I should add, one of the many reasons why Ned and Nicole will be getting my votes - excerpt below from grumpy.com.au:

• Memberships should be encouraged. Every registrant of a domain name should automatically be entitled to be a free member of auDA (opt-in our opt-out model). This will increase membership numbers, and create a better internet community. Canada does this successfully in their internet space. – “Applying for membership is easy, free and open to any .CA holder.”

• We’d like to see no more “them and us” mentality (as in Supply and Demand members). Having two types of memberships creates a divide. Let’s work together for the good of the domain space instead of against each other. We need to focus on pushing the space forward, not on acting against whatever the “other side” wants.

 

[snoopy]

And I should add, one of the many reasons why Ned and Nicole will be getting my votes - excerpt below from grumpy.com.au:

• Memberships should be encouraged. Every registrant of a domain name should automatically be entitled to be a free member of auDA (opt-in our opt-out model). This will increase membership numbers, and create a better internet community. Canada does this successfully in their internet space. – “Applying for membership is easy, free and open to any .CA holder.”

• We’d like to see no more “them and us” mentality (as in Supply and Demand members). Having two types of memberships creates a divide. Let’s work together for the good of the domain space instead of against each other. We need to focus on pushing the space forward, not on acting against whatever the “other side” wants.

Agree, membership base needs to be massively expanded. I don't really see the need for a fee either. Only needs one membership type, "member".

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I wonder how many auDA directors are double dippers - supply and demand class members.

How do they manage this conflict? Do they take two hats into the auDA boardroom?

 

[Cheyne]

I wonder how many auDA directors are double dippers - supply and demand class members.

This is the reason as to why I am not a demand member, and a big reason why the current membership model is flawed.

 

[Lemon]

I think we all agree that the membership model is flawed.

The Canadian model is interesting however you need to look at how Directors are elected.
1 Membership Slate
3 Nomination Commitee Slate
To be on the Commitee Slate you have to be nominated by members but you are also vetted by the Nomination Committee as an acceptable candidate.

These are also the requirements.

• current governance experience (mandatory);
• experience identifying and selecting superior candidates;
• experience in relevant industry sectors;
• a passion for Canada's Internet.

From this model the nomination committee is basically comprised of members who are in the industry or professionals in another capacity.

I am not sure if the current auDA demand class members would be willing to agree to a change that would potentially mean only one demand class (end user) director elected directly by them.

The issue is that to change the membership model requires changes to the constitution which at this point requires 75% in favour from both sides of the fence.

Increasing membership is fine, and should be actively encouraged, but you also need to look at the composition of the Board. Industry and community both need to be represented to ensure a balance. Having only 2 classes of membership is an issue especially when those members who qualify for supply are very limited (There are only about 40 registrars). The question is do we move to only 1 membership class or do we have additional membership classes to represent different sectors of the community.

For example. 1 Director Elected from each class

• Supply Class - Registrars & Resellers
• Organisation Class - Community, NFP, Trade Associations & Bodies
• Industry Class - Web Designers, Lawyers, Professionals etc
• Demand Class - General Public, Registrants etc.

Before you all start being negative. This is just an alternative possibility of how the membership can be structured. Everything is open for debate, the difficulty is going to be coming to an agreement.

Disclaimer: The above is my personal view and in no way represents the opinions of the auDA Board.

 

[Lemon]

You could also move to a 3 year term which would mean 12 Board Directors
Unlucky 13 could be an independent Chairman.

 

[DomainNames]

Again for 2017 we can all see the issue remains;

• This year memberships again have been stacked and it appears if people do not like someone or the threat of them getting onto the board they do whatever it takes to stop them from getting the membership or the "dirty tricks campaign" currently at play in the background against Ned who seemingly some do not want to be on the auDA Board.
• There has been absolutely no effort I can see by auDA in the last year to increase auDA memberships or change the current model everyone has complained about promising change.

Ask yourself;
1. Who does not want Ned and Nicole on the auDA Board?
2. Who does not want Ned and Nicole to be able to read the past minutes and information?
3. Who sent the anonymous emails regarding Ned's bankruptcy from year ago trying to now smear him? Didn't most people on the board and at auDA knew about it before so why bring it up now at the last minute before the AGM? It appears Ned has found out the answers of the people who are behind all of this fairly easily..Ned could name and shame them but has not.... yet!
4. Why has Ned taken the high ground and not dumped all the dirt on others which he most probably has available to him. Ned has the platform to do it but has chosen not to. Who could Ned easily take out from auDA, auDA Board or Candidates with what information he has or could most easily get?
5. Each year people promise a lot, $millions are spent on "consultants". Nothing has changed to benefit the paying .au domain name registrant consumer... the hand that feeds to auDA and supply machine.

Candidates, auDA and the auDA Board need to focus on the .au domain name registrant consumer, what do they want? Too many people are forgetting this is why auDA exists and how auDA exists.

 

[Lemon]

Candidates, auDA and the auDA Board need to focus on the .au domain name registrant consumer, what do they want? Too many people are forgetting this is why auDA exists and how auDA exists.

This is not why auDA exists.

Taking the view that the Internet Domain Name System is a public asset, and that the .au ccTLD is under the sovereign control of the Commonwealth of Australia, auDA will administer the .au ccTLD for the benefit of the Australian community.

 

[snoopy]

This is not why auDA exists.

Sounds like virtually the same thing to me. AUDA needs to contact all domain owners.

 

[DomainNames]

This is not why auDA exists.

Why does auDA exist in your opinion?
How can auDA and the auDA Board exist without the $$ payed by .au domain name registrant CONSUMERS?

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:
a. ensuring the continued operational stability of the domain name system in Australia;
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
d. the promotion of fair trading;
e. the promotion of consumer protection;
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)

 

[Lemon]

What about the members of the Australian community who do not own a domain name. auDA also exists for their benefit. By having a trusted namespace that means that consumers should have confidence in visiting or communicating with businesses that have a .au domain name.

 

[Lemon]

What about the people who work directly in the Domain Industry. They are employed in the industry but may not own a domain name. auDA also represents them.
You have a very narrow and misguided view that auDA only represents domain registrants.

 

[DomainNames]

What about the people who work directly in the Domain Industry. They are employed in the industry but may not own a domain name. auDA also represents them.
You have a very narrow and misguided view that auDA only represents domain registrants.

Ian, if you read my numerous and very lengthy post you will see I call for auDA to increase membership to all possible stakeholders.

BUT it is very obvious there has been a lack of focus on the actual paying .au domain name consumer. Why these people are registering the .au name and why some are not ? Why have people moved to other extensions and why have some people just gone for Apps without the corresponding website and domain name all together?

auDA and the auDA Foundation have been a "teet" which many have suckled on for a very long time. It is apparent once people are taken off the teet or their flow of milk is reduced they whine.....

No .au domain name registrant consumers - no auDA.

 

[findtim]

WOW, this threads moving fast and i have been actually working LOL
lets cut to the chase
yes cheyne: alluding seems to be the only way to go these days, i comes with asking a lot of trust from members that i am actually doing something, i suppose ian could jump in and say " yep, tim is doing something" and leave it at that?
stacking: ebranding covers that, its not that the membership model is broken, its that the membership model is not promoted, i'm not going to detail it here and now, i'll start another thread as its important especially now we have a CAC and a PRP.
we need to take membership out of the election thread, there are 2 issues here and there is very little talk about candidates and who they are !
for the record, i am a member,demand, and so is helena, i have no supply membership although i could, like cheyne mentioned if i wanted to i could have over 100 members tomorrow to get me voted on the board, funnily shane could have over 2000 !

board results for demand:
tim connell 52
simon johnson 66
shane moore 2048
nicole murdoch 16

but we don't, i've said it before that the problem is to create the change needs the people who are stacking to approve the change, so hopefully the CAC and PRP can help through submissions to do that, and once again i am alluding !
his whole thread seems " half glass " , there's 13 days to go, lets get back to the points.

tim