Simon Johnson resigns from the auDA board

[Shane]

For those who aren't members and didn't get the email:

"Demand Class Director Simon Johnson today advised auDA that he had decided to resign his Board position, effective immediately.

The casual vacancy will be filled in accordance with the usual process outlined in the Constitution."

Wonder what the story is...? And what now happens with his special resolution on Monday?

 

[ttfan]

I suspect his resolution stands, he's still an auda member.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I wonder if lemon will get appointed again.

 

[DomainNames]

There was a massive vote against Simon's proposals and Simon did not attend the AGM due to resigning just prior to it.

Upon reflection it brings to memory Stuart Benjamin's last minute departure prior to the SGM.

Had Simon given more notice perhaps the AGM election may have enabled Demand Class Members to actually vote to fill the demand class board position?

 

[findtim]

Upon reflection it brings to memory Stuart Benjamin's last minute departure prior to the SGM.

i will personally not stand by and have anyone trash simon, he has his reasons and if he doesn't want to detail them then so be it, i have worked closely with simon for the last 12 months and he has been an exceptional director and has conducted himself professionally and honestly through his appointment to the auda board, he has made MAJOR contributions and i can say i have learnt SH*T loads from him.

so let me be blunt....... back off B*TCH

tim

 

[DomainNames]

i will personally not stand by and have anyone trash simon, he has his reasons and if he doesn't want to detail them then so be it, i have worked closely with simon for the last 12 months and he has been an exceptional director and has conducted himself professionally and honestly through his appointment to the auda board, he has made MAJOR contributions and i can say i have learnt SH*T loads from him.

so let me be blunt....... back off B*TCH

tim

So you supported his resolution and the way it was handled?

Clearly this was my point with the reference to the massive vote against it!

This is not a personal debate or attack Tim do not read or write back as it is one.

 

[findtim]

once you related simon to stuart you lit the fuse, simon did a heap of good work for the domain name community you'll never know about, lets leave it at that.

So you supported his resolution

i did not support the resolution and i told simon that face to face, i also told the board that and clearly most people felt the same.
i feel this is work best done via the CRC and i have every confidence in scottL to do a good job with a set of recommendations to the board.

and the way it was handled?

chris clearly explained it was a member resolution done through the correct procedure and it was then voted on in the correct way where it was defeated.
back to the crc, the government review will of course play a role in suggesting things auda needs to change so nobody should be blind to that fact and as snoopy pointed out yesterday we now have just 19 days to make submissions.

my suggestion is your submission should be well presented and factually based not so opinion based, i myself will force myself to use punctuation , grammar checker and YES capital letters in the correct spots

tim

 

[DomainNames]

https://www.domainer.com.au/big-fail-on-special-resolution/
"Big Fail On Special Resolution

November 29, 2017 by Ned O'Meara

At the auDA AGM on Monday, Item 8 on the agenda was a special resolution proposed by former auDA Director Simon Johnson. For completeness, I should add that this was supposedly proposed in his private capacity as a Demand Class member.

Special Resolution — Amendment of Constitution:

Fit and Proper Persons Test, proposed by demand class member Simon Johnson

This was overwhelmingly voted down.

In fact, when the Chair asked both Demand and Supply Class members in the room (separately) who was in favour, not one person raised their “green card”. When asked who was against, there was a sea of green.

These Are The Questions That Remain Unanswered
As per my article dated 23rd November:

a. Given that the proposer was also an auDA Director at the time, was this resolution first discussed with any other auDA Directors (or the CEO) before being added to the Agenda?

b. Was it first vetted by auDA lawyers to ensure it was capable of being enacted? i.e. Not in conflict with other parts of the Constitution; or the Corporations Act?

c. Given auDA’s commitment to the Government that it will be responsive to the wider internet community, could the adoption of this resolution preclude or disenfranchise certain people?

d. What process has been adopted for members to put up resolutions for consideration at the AGM? Have members been informed that this process is available to all? If not, why not?

auDA members are really tired of being ignored, and want a return to transparency and communication.

That was part of the platform that Nicole and I ran on – and the emphatic vote we received should be a wake-up call to auDA.

Ned O’Meara – 29th November 2017"

 

[Bacon Farmer]

This demand directorship position remains vacant after 3 and a half months.

Why?

I can think of a couple of worthy candidates who would be an exceptional fit right now.

 

[joshrowe]

from: https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/#19.7

19.7 Casual Vacancies
a. Subject to clauses 15.3 and 19.1, any vacancy occurring in the Board whether by death, resignation or otherwise shall be filled within three (3) calendar months of the vacancy occurring (or such longer period as the Board may otherwise resolve) by the remaining Directors.

The board can take as long as they like filling the vacancy.

However, by not filling the Demand class seat they are gagging an important voice on the board from Demand class members.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

If they have resolved to leave it vacant, then I’d expect the minutes to reflect that.

Otherwise an explanation is owed to the demand class members.

 

[snoopy]

However, by not filling the Demand class seat they are gagging an important voice on the board from Demand class members.

Would they actually fill it with a demand class voice though? The type of person demand members would support? Have doubts.

 

[findtim]

Would they actually fill it with a demand class voice though?

don't forget you do have, dare i say, the best combo of demand class directors EVER on the board right now, everyone knows that this is a minority vote and there is a due process which is to be followed.
which direction that takes is of course a BOARD decision.
do not think for 1 minute all 3 MEMBER voted demand class directors are not totally aware of the missing director.

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So the process for finding a demand director takes longer than finding a replacement Chairperson or are there no freeloading Victorian liberal party members left to suck on the auDA gravy train?

 

[findtim]

the constitution as it stands says its a board decision as josh pointed out, which means the majority of the board is a board decision.
and as i pointed out there are presently 3 elected demand class directors of a total of 10 voting directors.

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I understand the dynamics ;-)

It's not a good look is it when the board drags it's heels to prevent a balanced board or a balanced panel or even slows the publishing of minutes.

 

[snoopy]

the constitution as it stands says its a board decision as josh pointed out, which means the majority of the board is a board decision.
and as i pointed out there are presently 3 elected demand class directors of a total of 10 voting directors.

tim

Same old BS, supply side want to appoint their "supply" demand director no doubt, someone who would be obviously unacceptable to the membership base. Have they worked out their "skills" required to appoint their own man?

This situation would not happen if the vacancy was for a supply director.

 

[findtim]

This situation would not happen if the vacancy was for a supply director.

last year erhan and i were tasked to replace the demand class director after the sgm of which ian was appointed, later a committee was formed with sandra and erhan and i to appoint independents chris and suzanne through multiple interviews of candidates, prior to that kartic was replaced by gavin of which i was not part of the interview process.

as we all know ians appointment was elongated , chris and suzannes was not and nor was gavins, having been a part of all those decisions i can say my demand class status ( whilst being a director and am neutral) was not a time factor for me, i just always wanted a full board.

i have been and will be taking membership concerns about this issue to the next board meeting.

on this note i have always stated that supply and demand need to understand we need each other, i stand by that, i would NEVER block not having a full supply side.

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Who is blocking the appointment?

 

[findtim]

Who is blocking the appointment?

as stated

the constitution as it stands says its a board decision as josh pointed out, which means the majority of the board is a board decision.

tim