auDA PRP Peak Body concerns?

[DomainNames]

https://www.auda.org.au/news/2017-policy-review-panel-peak-business-body-representative-appointed/

2017 Policy Review Panel: Peak Business Body(?) Representative Appointed

"Posted by auDA on 9 April 2018

John Swinson, 2017 Policy Review Panel Chair, is pleased to announce that Nicola Seaton has been appointed as peak business body representative for the 2017 Policy Review Panel.

Ms Seaton is a General Counsel and Company Secretary for Canstar, a leading finance comparison site."​

________________________________________________________________________________________

Canstar is not a peak business body! They are a privately owned financial comparison website with paid advertisers.

https://www.canstar.com.au/about-canstar/

"Canstar is Australia’s biggest financial comparison site, comparing more brands than any other – learn more.

"We were established over 25 years ago as a privately owned financial research agency and we now see 1 in 6 Australians visit our site each year, with two in three people recognising the Canstar logo."​

"How do we get paid?
Canstar is committed to offering comprehensive financial information to you for free.
To continue to generate this quality information with the staff, systems and innovation needed, Canstar generates revenue in four ways through subscriptions, award licences, advertising and lead referrals."
Read more information about ‘How we get paid’​

https://www.canstar.com.au/team-members/nicola-seaton/

" I came to Canstar as a consultant after working as General Counsel and Company Secretary at an ASX-listed company, WebCentral. "
https://www.webcentral.com.au/​

• Netregistry ( https://www.netregistry.com.au/blog/vote-yes-to-opening-au-to-direct-registrations/ )

• WebCentral
• TPP Wholesale ( https://www.tppwholesale.com.au/blog/vote-yes-opening-au-direct-registrations/ )

https://www.webcentral.com.au/about-us/

"WebCentral is Australia's largest web and application hosting company, providing a range of online business solutions to companies of all sizes in the Asia Pacific region.

We're a financially stable company, exhibiting strong revenue growth and profitability. In September 2006 WebCentral became 100% owned by ASX-listed Melbourne IT Limited (ASX:MLB)."​

__________________________________________________________________________________________

• https://namebid.com.au/articles/15/auda_prp_direct_au_registration/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/18/auda-existing-registrants-priority/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/17/prp_trap_direct_au_registrations/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/16/prp-australian-domain-name-direct-au-registration-forums/
• https://namebid.com.au/articles/19/auda-policy-review-panel-2018-doomed/

 

[DomainNames]

I will add these quoted website posts for some reflection of the majority of peoples concerns about auDA process and Panels makeup etc:

• https://www.domainer.com.au/when-does-a-conflict-of-interest-exist
• https://www.domainer.com.au/justifying-the-end-result
• https://www.domainer.com.au/follow-the-money/

 

[PaulS]

I cant even....just....wow.

I make no comment about Nicola Seaton's undoubtedly excellent reputation and skill-set as a senior lawyer.
Her experience at WebCentral affirms a useful knowledge of the .au namespace.

But....but....what is auDA thinking?
Ms Seaton has a very visible previous association with our industry. I would never question her impartiality, but the optics are just.....wow.
And as stated rather extensively above - how is Canstar a peak industry body?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Please return your seats to their full upright position and securely stow away your tray tables. We are entering a parallel universe.

 

[snoopy]

I'm sure she is a great lawyer, and may fit into one of the other positions on the panel, but how is she a "peak business body representative"? She simply isn't and the Chair seems to be making a desperate move to try and fill seats.

The meaning of peak business body is quite clear,

"A peak organisation or peak body is an Australian term for an advocacy group or trade association, an association of industries or groups with allied interests.[1] They are generally established for the purposes of developing standards and processes, or to act on behalf of all members when lobbying government or promoting the interests of the members."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_organisation

 

[snoopy]

Resignation letter of Luke Summers (PRP Panel Demand Representative),

https://www.theluckycountry.com.au/...gnation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel.pdf

 

[DomainNames]

Resignation letter of Luke Summers (PRP Panel Demand Representative),

https://www.theluckycountry.com.au/...gnation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel.pdf

Luke's letter is so important to be brought to stakeholders attention of the auDA PRP situation it is posted in it's entirety.

QUOTED

"John Swinson
Chair, 2017 Policy Review Panel
7 April 2018

Notice of resignation from the 2017 Policy Review Panel

Dear Mr Swinson,

I no longer have confidence that the Panel can proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the
Australian internet community. Therefore, I formally advise you of my resignation from the Panel.

The Panel does not adequately represent the interests of the Australian internet community. The size and composition of the Panel is entirely inappropriate for a policy review of this scale and significance. The lack of business representation on the Panel is unacceptable. The under representation on the Panel has also been further exacerbated by the recent departure of Paul Zawa.

I am greatly concerned that the Panel lacks objectivity, and that stakeholder feedback is being overwhelmingly overlooked in favour of personal views held by some Panel members.

As reflected in the 16 March 2018 Panel meeting minutes, I tabled a series of concerns that numerous people had raised with me, about Panel member interactions with stakeholders and the consultation process to date. In my opinion, many of these concerns have validity.

Many of the policy reforms being pushed for by the Panel are in direct opposition to the majority views expressed by stakeholders; and should these reforms be implemented, then a large number of stakeholders’ concerns will ultimately be realised.

I cannot in good conscience be a participant in a policy reform process that lacks proper representation and objectivity; and that is highly likely to result in negative impacts on a large number of stakeholders in the Australian community.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the 2017 Policy Review Panel; and for the professional manner in which you have Chaired the Panel.

Regards,
Luke Summers"​

 

[PaulS]

In all seriousness this is just too much for one night.
I am saddened that Luke had this experience.
But kudos to him for issuing his statement.

 

[Jimboot]

Resignation letter of Luke Summers (PRP Panel Demand Representative),

https://www.theluckycountry.com.au/...gnation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel.pdf

Wow. Well done Luke for having a go and thanks for the statement.

 

[DomainNames]

Luke's letter is so important to be brought to stakeholders attention of the auDA PRP situation it is posted in it's entirety.

QUOTED

"John Swinson
Chair, 2017 Policy Review Panel
7 April 2018

Notice of resignation from the 2017 Policy Review Panel

Dear Mr Swinson,

I no longer have confidence that the Panel can proceed in a manner that is in the best interests of the
Australian internet community. Therefore, I formally advise you of my resignation from the Panel.

The Panel does not adequately represent the interests of the Australian internet community. The size and composition of the Panel is entirely inappropriate for a policy review of this scale and significance. The lack of business representation on the Panel is unacceptable. The under representation on the Panel has also been further exacerbated by the recent departure of Paul Zawa.

I am greatly concerned that the Panel lacks objectivity, and that stakeholder feedback is being overwhelmingly overlooked in favour of personal views held by some Panel members.

As reflected in the 16 March 2018 Panel meeting minutes, I tabled a series of concerns that numerous people had raised with me, about Panel member interactions with stakeholders and the consultation process to date. In my opinion, many of these concerns have validity.

Many of the policy reforms being pushed for by the Panel are in direct opposition to the majority views expressed by stakeholders; and should these reforms be implemented, then a large number of stakeholders’ concerns will ultimately be realised.

I cannot in good conscience be a participant in a policy reform process that lacks proper representation and objectivity; and that is highly likely to result in negative impacts on a large number of stakeholders in the Australian community.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the 2017 Policy Review Panel; and for the professional manner in which you have Chaired the Panel.

Regards,
Luke Summers"​

Here is the auDA Spin!
https://mumbrella.com.au/australian...members-push-to-fire-ceo-and-directors-510019

“This independent and open process should run its course. Under no circumstances should it be derailed by a group of advocates pushing only one side of the issue."

“We are committed to treading extremely carefully with any potential reforms and that is why an independent panel has been consulting with stakeholders representing a full spectrum of views. The panel will report to the auDA board later in the year."

Is auDA talking about the supply related parties and themselves who have derailed process pushing only one side of the issue which is Yes for the proposed competing additional .au extension no what what the cost and damage to the existing .au name space and users?
_______
Is Brett Fenton and Melbourne IT's agenda or auDA's own money making plans running the auDA PRP agenda to push this in? Reading past submissions and public materials I can certainly see some links...

Brett Fenton has been a director of auDA, is on a number of names panels and is currently the Chief Customer Officer of Melbourne IT Group.

It seems they even said the words "lets push for this change" themselves!

"We strongly encourage everyone to vote to support the change. Australia is behind the rest of the world in many things, but let’s push for this change!"
https://www.tppwholesale.com.au/blog/vote-yes-opening-au-direct-registrations/
Written on 03 September, 2015 by Brett Fenton
https://www.netregistry.com.au/blog/vote-yes-to-opening-au-to-direct-registrations/

 

[snoopy]

Under no circumstances should it be derailed by a group of advocates pushing only one side of the issue."

“We are committed to treading extremely carefully with any potential reforms and that is why an independent panel has been consulting with stakeholders representing a full spectrum of views. The panel will report to the auDA board later in the year."

auDA has these issues because they refuse to discuss the merits of the proposal, no business case, the public hasn't been contacted, they have simply tried to push to the proposal through.

"It is going to happen. It is just a matter of when and how." - Cameron Boardman, September 2017 PRP Meeting

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Uploads/auda-prp-minutes-20170927.pdf

 

[Shane]

What a joke...
Which "Peak Business Body" does she represent? Canstar is not even close to fitting this criteria!
Just to clarify, this is directed 100% towards auDA and not Ms Seaton or Canstar.
It makes me sad what people at auDA are trying to do to our country's domain space, all in the name of making profit and a name for themselves.

 

[snoopy]

Article on Domainer.com.au about this today,

I think auDA would be wise to eat some “humble pie”, and start again with the Policy Review Panel when it comes to direct registrations.

But this time, do the business case study first. Then make sure the panel is a lot more representative of the Australian internet and SME community, and finally, keep it disciplined. It’s one thing to have a strong point of view around the private table, but it’s not helpful if one of the panel publicly attacks and criticizes certain groups whilst it is still deliberating.

Ned O’Meara – 10th April 2018

https://www.domainer.com.au/i-hate-to-say-it-but/

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Cam on Mumbrella -> “Currently, Australia is among only a minority of G20 nations that do not offer a direct registration option, so it is absolutely appropriate that such an option is considered by the independent panel."

So is he saying considering direct registrations is part of the panel's scope?

So it's not a done deal?

Cam also claims -> “This independent and open process should run its course. Under no circumstances should it be derailed by a group of advocates pushing only one side of the issue."

Which seems to be at odds with his earlier claim.

"It is going to happen. It is just a matter of when and how." - Cameron Boardman, September 2017 PRP Meeting

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Uploads/auda-prp-minutes-20170927.pdf

 

[snoopy]

I think the new comments are now watered down versions to try and have more media appeal.

I also have major doubts that the panel is genuinely independent of auDA.

 

[DomainNames]

moved to SGM

 

[snoopy]

Prof Christie out, Lemon in. Can it get any worse?

https://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2017-policy-review-panel/

 

[snoopy]

“No matter how they try to spin this, it looks like scrambling to me (as it does to many others).

With all these changes, I really think auDA needs to start the process again (and add more representatives).”

https://www.domainer.com.au/more-changes-to-audas-prp/

 

[PaulS]

Prof Christie out, Lemon in. Can it get any worse?

https://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2017-policy-review-panel/

You've missed one important nuance there, Snoopy.
Note that Nicola Seaton is listed as a "Business Representative" and the text about a Peak Body rep still remains.
The PRP's Terms of Reference were very specific and did not include a Business Representative.

 

[DomainNames]

You've missed one important nuance there, Snoopy.
Note that Nicola Seaton is listed as a "Business Representative" and the text about a Peak Body rep still remains.
The PRP's Terms of Reference were very specific and did not include a Business Representative.

What can anyone or Members do?

 

[Jimboot]

You've missed one important nuance there, Snoopy.
Note that Nicola Seaton is listed as a "Business Representative" and the text about a Peak Body rep still remains.
The PRP's Terms of Reference were very specific and did not include a Business Representative.

..and yet the announcement says something the different. Which is the truth?