Government moves on auDA.

[Cheyne]

I guess the real question that needs to be asked is "why?". Why would anybody call an SGM asking for resignations just days before the Government report was due without knowing what it said? It sounds like a certain group of people wanted to have an each-way bet on this race.

The SGM needs to be formally withdrawn without delay. It is no longer valid given the fact that the report wants to flush the board and start fresh with the new process that is through the Nomination Committee.

The days of members, both supply and demand, running roughshod over the board are finished. Done. Dusted. Buried. Cremated.

I said a couple of months ago that we needed to draw a line in the sand and move forward - well now the line has been drawn for us all.

We have four walls to work within which are the pages of this review document, and if we don't sort it out it'll be done for us.

 

[snoopy]

It is no longer valid given the fact that the report wants to flush the board and start fresh with the new process that is through the Nomination Committee.

Of the 4 auDA management & directors referenced in the SGM resolutions, which ones would be "flushed" by the government review?

 

[Cheyne]

Of the 4 auDA management & directors referenced in the SGM resolutions, which ones would be "flushed" by the government review?

At the very least the two independents.

Recommendation 7a(iv) says that the first board following the reforms will be selected by the Nomination Committee, and recommendation 7d, it says that within 12 months the Board is to be reconstituted to ensure all appointments meet the new criteria.

Now you will next ask about the Chair and the CEO? They now both face a very clear choice - change or be changed. If they don't agree to these reforms then the review clearly states that the Government will simply put it out to EOI.

So the clock is now ticking for every board member.

Members are going to get one person on the Nomination Committee, and one or two Board members. If I were you, I would start figuring out who that needs to be.

 

[snoopy]

Cheyne, none of the 4 are facing the “flush” on the basis of the government review (under the reform option).

 

[DomainNames]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/19/auda_review_demands_major_reforms/

"Australia’s .au admins told to reform or get rooted"

auDA bins plans for direct .au sales to focus on governance and not pissing off members
By Simon Sharwood, APAC Editor 19 Apr 2018 at 00:56

The administrator of Australia’s top level .au domain, auDA, has been told to reform or be forcibly stripped of its role.

That edict was delivered yesterday by Australia’s minister for communications Mitch Fifield, who ordered a review of auDA after the organisation’s board introduced a Code of Conduct that restricted members actions, but did so without consultation. The auDA board also stopped publishing its minutes online. Those events eventually led to a vote of no confidence in its executive led to the departure of its chair. Opposition to a new plan to sell .au domains also rankled members.

The review landed on April 18th, here, and doesn’t mince words, offering a “central finding” that “the current management and governance framework for auDA is no longer fit-for-purpose and that reform is necessary if the company is to perform effectively and meet the needs of Australia’s internet community.”

The detailed recommendations call for auDA to reform its board and the way members are selected, to focus on sustainability rather than profit (which rather puts the kibosh on .au domain sales) and to do away with graded memberships in favour of a single class of membership.

auDA’s been given three to six months to show it’s acted on the recommendations and two years to get its house in order, with a requirement for quarterly progress reports. The Department of Communications has also said it will place a senior officer on the auDA board, albeit without a vote, to oversee the reform process

If it can’t reform, Australia’s government “will take action to ensure that Australia’s domain name is administered effectively and in the interest of all Australians. This includes transitioning the delegation for management of .au to another provider if auDA is unable to achieve necessary outcomes.”

auDA CEO Cameron Boardman welcomed the review and said the organisation is already cracking on with reform. The organisation has also written to members saying “your Board believes it will not be able to properly consider ‘direct registration’ until the second half of 2019 at the earliest.” Until that time, the government’s desired reforms are its priority.

Internet Australia declared itself “particularly pleased to see that many of our concerns and recommendations have been incorporated in the Government’s review, with a focus on multi-stakeholder engagement in Internet governance, and reforms of .auDA’s governance model.”

So now we wait: auDA’s confident it can remake itself. And if it cannot, things will get even more interesting"​

 

[DomainNames]

There may be major changes at auDA tomorrow...

People are watching very carefully to see how much and if anyone is being offered money to go away as a considered measure to take off the pressure and get auDA and Board focus back on the existing .au namespace improvment and stability ( not auDA funding Timor Leste namespace or a new auDA company Name and branding, or more Consultants, or the competing .au extension so many are against etc etc) .

If the Board does not change tact they will be gone.
if auDA Mnagamenbt do no change tact they will be gone.

We will all still be able to get the existing variety options of great secure, well known and trusted .au domain names...Things will go on.

IF people are being offered vast sums of money to go away that raises a lot more potential problems for auDA and the Board. Damage has been done and they have cost and a lot of people massive damage already. Including damage to the .au namespace and also damage to government reputation. auDA has suffered massive excessive avoidable expenses and yes .au consumers and registars/ resellers have been continually ripped off.

 

[Cheyne]

Cheyne, none of the 4 are facing the “flush” on the basis of the government review (under the reform option).

The two independent directors will now need to be nominated by either auDA or members. Even if they are, they then need to be put forward as candidates by the nomination committee, which means they will have passed the checks and balances that every future board member will need to do.

Within 12 months the board needs to be vacated and reconstituted with members that have gone through that process.

As for the Chair and the CEO, as I said they now face the reality of the recommended reforms or risk the Government putting it out to an EOI.

Paul, please explain to me where you see my logic failing here? Perhaps I am reading or interpreting something wrong.

 

[Lemon]

Cheyne, none of the 4 are facing the “flush” on the basis of the government review (under the reform option).

Every single member of the board will have to meet the selection criteria withing 12 months.

My opinion is that the governance reforms will need to be in play by November prior to the next AGM. This means that an SGM needs to be held at least a month before that, October, to pass any motions put forward to change the constitution.
An SGM needs at least 1 months notice, so September.

Basically auDA has 4 months from now to plan and put forward constitutional changes to members to be voted on and hopefully passed.
I do hope that they reform the CRC and consult members about change or this will never be achievable.

I also think the current SGM is a distraction as change will occur anyway.

 

[DomainNames]

Anyone from demand class want to go for the auDA CEO job?

Was the current auDA CEO previously a Demand class or Supply class member before moving to the CEO job?

Looks a bit like how Stuart Benjamin moved from being a member over to the paid 'Independent' Chair position...

Do we have a case of auDA and Board signing off committing acts of "golden parachute" "golden handshake" days?... no wonder certain people want auDA to keep the .au wholsale prices high for their own benefit rather than .au consumers, registrars or resellers?

 

[DomainNames]

The auDA Piggy bank ( .au domain name registrant Consumer money) has been and continues to be raided for cash, possibly excessive payouts, massive avoidable expenses in the $millions every year!

• How much has auDA and the Board spent out of auDA funds in the last 2 years for the Timor Leste namespace prpject which is 100% outside of the role of auDA?

https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-a...acity-building-project-in-the-pacific-region/

• How much was / is the Consultant costing?
• Where did auDA advertise the Consulting contract?
• How was the Consutanrt chosen and from how many candidates who submitted an EOI or offers and proposals?

 

[snoopy]

Paul, please explain to me where you see my logic failing here? Perhaps I am reading or interpreting something wrong.

The number of independent directors is set to increase under the proposal, very low chance of any independent directors or the CEO going under the the reform option.

 

[DomainNames]

The number of independent directors is set to increase under the proposal, very low chance of any independent directors or the CEO going under the the reform option.

..So we will see more auDA expenses at $40,000 + for every additional 'independent'? Further examples of poor management and wastage of Consumer money.

Often sadly independents lack the experience required or the real interest to learn or interact. They often sit on a lot of other boards ...Heck you can even pay to join clubs where they help put you onto Boards for payment..

 

[DomainNames]

https://bothsidesofthetable.com/why-i-don-t-like-board-observers-428e26e61dba

"I even had a lawyer recently tell me, “I want to try and see every vote on this board be unanimous because dissent on boards can be used in the future in lawsuits or can be used by an acquirer to raised concerns in an M&A process.”
​

Is this why we kept reading auDA said the Board was Unanimous and that Board members No votes where left off the auDA public minutes so many times before?

Oh... where are all the auDA minutes and Agendas again? They are missing again auDA and Board! What are you really hiding again?

• https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/

https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-board-minutes-now-on-website/

"2017 auDA Board Minutes and Agendas now on Website
Posted by auDA on 8 August 2017

As noted in the Board Communique last Thursday 3 August 2017 and consistent with our commitment to our members, we have reinstated the 2017 Board Minutes (up until June 2017, with subsequent Board Minutes to be posted in due course) and agendas. They can be found on the auDA Board Meetings page."​

​

 

[DomainNames]

Lots of holes here auDA and Board!

What happened after the 2017 ASGM and your 'commitment' to publishing the Agendas and Minutes?
https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-board-minutes-now-on-website/

Where we ( and Government) all lied to again by auDA and the auDA Board? It seems yes!

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/

2017
Board Meeting Agenda Minutes
13 February 2017 PDF PDF
24 April 2017 PDF PDF
22 May 2017 PDF PDF
19 June 2017 PDF PDF
24 July 2017 PDF PDF
31 July 2017 NOTHING PDF
2 August 2017 NOTHING PDF
14 August 2017 PDF PDF
16 August 2017 NOTHING PDF
21 August 2017 PDF PDF
6 September 2017 NOTHING PDF
26 September 2017 PDF PDF
23 October 2017 PDF PDF
26 October 2017 NOTHING PDF
13 November 2017 NOTHING NOTHING
12 December 2017 NOTHING PDF
18 December 2017 NOTHING PDF

auDA Board Meeting Schedule 2018
Board Meeting Minutes
13 February 2018 NOTHING

26 March 2018 NOTHING

 

[Cheyne]

The number of independent directors is set to increase under the proposal, very low chance of any independent directors or the CEO going under the the reform option.

The new independent directors have to be put forward by the new nomination committee. So now you're suggesting that the nomination committee is already incapable of doing its job before its even been formed?

tl;dr, you're not going to be satisfied until you get everything you want and you're not willing to compromise on anything. What a fantastic attitude to have. </sarcasm>

I came back to post here because I figured that we would all now be on the same page since we've all been given our parameters to work with, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case and I am not going to waste my time trying to mend a bridge that was burned down long before I came here.

If anybody here truly and genuinely wants to fix auDA, move forward, and restore stability and transparency, this is what needs to happen:

1. Support all 29 recommendations in the Government review - the review that you asked for.
   
2. Tell Josh, Jim and Paul to call off the SGM since it is a true waste of time and money given the results of the review.
3. Work towards finding the best people to nominate to the new Nomination Committee for representing members so that they can be put forward as candidates for the new board positions.
4. Stop digging up past grievances. It's over! The time has come to move forward or be left behind.

I'm not going to waste time arguing points or trying to put forward valid concerns when nobody here is willing to listen.

The only way forward is for everybody to work together. Don't like it? Then go and drop all your "worthless" .au domains so it's no longer a problem for you - I guarantee you won't.

 

[DomainNames]

The new independent directors have to be put forward by the new nomination committee. So now you're suggesting that the nomination committee is already incapable of doing its job before its even been formed?

tl;dr, you're not going to be satisfied until you get everything you want and you're not willing to compromise on anything. What a fantastic attitude to have. </sarcasm>

I came back to post here because I figured that we would all now be on the same page since we've all been given our parameters to work with, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case and I am not going to waste my time trying to mend a bridge that was burned down long before I came here.

If anybody here truly and genuinely wants to fix auDA, move forward, and restore stability and transparency, this is what needs to happen:

1. Support all 29 recommendations in the Government review - the review that you asked for.
   
2. Tell Josh, Jim and Paul to call off the SGM since it is a true waste of time and money given the results of the review.
3. Work towards finding the best people to nominate to the new Nomination Committee for representing members so that they can be put forward as candidates for the new board positions.
4. Stop digging up past grievances. It's over! The time has come to move forward or be left behind.

I'm not going to waste time arguing points or trying to put forward valid concerns when nobody here is willing to listen.

The only way forward is for everybody to work together. Don't like it? Then go and drop all your "worthless" .au domains so it's no longer a problem for you - I guarantee you won't.

"I'm not going to waste time arguing points or trying to put forward valid concerns when nobody here is willing to listen."

Good stop wasting your time and stop hurting your own customers and the stability of the existing .au namespace!

It is not helping anyone at all, certainly not our support for you business which some of us where loyal to and had respected ( until we read the Whirlpool and ongoing posts here which directly attacked your own paying customers and some very experienced people probably in the industry since when you where watching playschool... some even predating the existence of auDA who helped to develop and enormous amount of .au policies and reforms your company and you have benefited from)

The proposed competing .au extension is dead. Get over it, stop attacking your customers, stop attacking those who invested or more investment in the existing .au namespace options such as .com.au and .net.au and focus on the other available products and services you can sell today.

SGM
The SGM has the signed support of a lot of people from both Supply and Demand membership. Over 50 signed and they could have had up to 100 sign who wanted to but they closed it as they did not need any more to proceed. People can vote how they want at the SGM. www.grumpier.com.au

It is possible ( like the last time) we may see some movement from auDA / Board / Government before the SGM so not all Resolutions may even be required if people are no longer there.

 

[Cheyne]

Will do.

 

[snoopy]

The new independent directors have to be put forward by the new nomination committee. So now you're suggesting that the nomination committee is already incapable of doing its job before its even been formed?

No, I am saying those directors would likely be kept, they are going to need more independent directors under the proposal.

you're not going to be satisfied until you get everything you want and you're not willing to compromise on anything. What a fantastic attitude to have. </sarcasm>

I came back to post here because I figured that we would all now be on the same page since we've all been given our parameters to work with, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case and I am not going to waste my time trying to mend a bridge that was burned down long before I came here.

..............blah blah blah

The fact is auDA will likely be replaced, odds of it sticking around are on the lower side.

Tell Josh, Jim and Paul to call off the SGM since it is a true waste of time and money given the results of the review.

How can they call it off? Have you thought about this? The review findings were as described by the government months ago so this is hardly a surprise development either.

 

[Lemon]

 

[Lemon]