auDA threatens SGM & Members with Court

[Lemon]

"https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2007/070416/

"9. Constitutional Review

The board discussed a paper drafted by CN outlining possible changes to the auDA Constitution to address three issues:

1. potential supply side capture of demand class

2. supply related person standing as a demand class director

3. related entities holding multiple supply class memberships.

The board affirmed the need to ensure that the Constitution is effective and achieves auDA’s objectives. The board also noted the importance of achieving a fair and reasonable balance between supply and demand, obesrving that there will always be a tendency for demand class to be under-represented.

The board agreed changes to address issues 2 and 3 above, as proposed in paras 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 of the board paper. It was decided that the change proposed in para 4.3 of the board paper to address issue 1 may not be effective, and further consideration should be given to options for increasing demand class membership and making it more representative.

Motion (proposed JR, seconded Julie H): That the proposed new definition of ‘Supply Related Person’ and proposed amendments to clauses 9.4 and 18.3 be put to members at an EGM. Carried unanimously.

Action: The board to set up a sub-committee to consider demand class membership issues."

And this issue was addressed by a Special Resolution which was put to the members at the 2007 AGM.
This was voted on and passed and the constitution was amended.
https://www.auda.org.au/assets/About-auDA/Annual-General-Meeting/2007/egm2007-annexure.pdf

From recollection I voted in favour.

 

[DomainNames]

-

 

[DomainNames]

And this issue was addressed by a Special Resolution which was put to the members at the 2007 AGM.
This was voted on and passed and the constitution was amended.
https://www.auda.org.au/assets/About-auDA/Annual-General-Meeting/2007/egm2007-annexure.pdf

So in your opinion there have been no problems since 2007?... Ok then...Let the Government know they are wrong in their findings.... in your opinion.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Shouldn't the directors whom are subject of the SGM resolutions recuse themselves from any decision making with regards to seeking legal solutions to prevent the SGM going ahead as per the constitution?

Is that a conflict of interest or what?

Shouldn't the Chair and other relevant directors step aside whilst this issue is sorted out?

 

[DomainNames]

Shouldn't the directors whom are subject of the SGM resolutions recuse themselves from any decision making with regards to seeking legal solutions to prevent the SGM going ahead as per the constitution?

Is that a conflict of interest or what?

Shouldn't the Chair and other relevant directors step aside whilst this issue is sorted out?

Wow.. now that is a good question..

And is it possible that some auDA Directors abstained from voting or even voted against for auDA to seek the delay tactics and Court and not to waste auDA funds doing it legal tactic costs and court costs etc?

Maybe it was not the tired old claimed 'unanimous' Board decision we often hear from auDA?

 

[Lemon]

So in your opinion there have been no problems since 2007?... Ok then...

When I had my 2 hour conversation with the Government Review I do recall discussing the issue.

The facts are that the Government Review has recognised that there are issues with the membership model and how Directors are elected. They have made their recommendation. Recommendations which must be addressed by auDA or, if necessary, a new provider.
Your concerns have been noted and now being acted upon. Let us wait for auDA's response and we can all vote on it at the AGM (if we get to that point)
Please Sean let it drop. You have won.

 

[DomainNames]

You have won.

Thanks Ian.

My gut feeling is there will be no auDA AGM again unless it revolves around the Winding Up and transition but let's see...

Do we get our membership fees back when the Government take over or it is wound up?

I can imagine some people are circling to get in on the wind up costs. $$$$$$

The government may need to keep a very close eye on all daily auDA expenses and any new contracts, consultants etc signed and any payout clauses in them.

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

"6 LIMITED LIABILITY

The liability of the Members is limited.

7 MEMBERS' GUARANTEE

Every Member undertakes to contribute an amount not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) to the property of auDA in the event of its being wound up while that person is a Member or within one year afterwards for:
a. payment of the debts and liabilities of auDA contracted before the time when that Member ceased to be a Member;
b. the costs, charges and expenses of winding up; and
c. for an adjustment of the rights of contributories among themselves.

8 WINDING UP

On dissolution of the Company, the right to administer the .au ccTLD must either be transferred on to another entity nominated or approved by the Commonwealth of Australia or, in the absence of such approval, be transferred to the Commonwealth of Australia.
If upon the winding up or dissolution of auDA there remains, after the satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities, any property or money whatsoever, the remaining assets shall not be paid or distributed to the Members but shall be transferred to the subsequent entity approved by the Commonwealth of Australia to manage the .au ccTLD."​

 

[Lemon]

Do we get our membership fees back when the Government take over or it is wound up?

No. We all have to pay $100.

 

[DomainNames]

No. We all have to pay $100.

Maybe we can all apply to the Government somehow for a refund ..After all they had oversight responsibility all along if it failed....Worth a try. I'm sure every member would sign up for that application... OR we change the Constitution now and take it out with all members voting!

new constitution
"All members will receive $10,000 from auDA upon winding up as recompense for auDA's mismanagement of the company and .au namespace leading to winding up."

 

[Cheyne]

Sean,

As seen in the response document from auDA, you used both your supply and demand membership to count as two separate votes to help call the SGM.

You clearly were not alone, as it seems Jim Stewart, Josh Rowe, Alan Gladman and Don Rankin all did the same thing with either their supply memberships or the demand memberships that belong to their spouses. That's five extra votes that you used to call an SGM.

You've claimed that there were so many members of supply that were part of this action. Yet another tall tail. The three supply members who were part of this action were all double votes belonging to demand members. I believe you also said there were registrars yet not a single one appears there.

And now you are trying to lecture people on "branch stacking" and "board hijacking" when you do the exact same thing to call an SGM? Simply outrageous.

 

[Lemon]

What is more concerning is how members of a small forum like DNTrade can manage to manipulate and bring down an important organisation such as auDA.

 

[DomainNames]

Would it surprise you if there where a lot of "Supply" related Demand members who signed the petition and they had to close it off as they could probably have had over 100 or more.. They don't need them at this stage ...

You are well out of your league on this one Cheyne.. Leave it to auDA and those who called it and just sit back and relax..You are wasting your breath.. very few people here listen to you or take your opinions seriously I would think... We have read a lot of your posts and you just never seem to learn how to treat some Demand consumers who have concerns it seems to me. Keep shooting your customers and demand class members.. way to go..

 

[Lemon]

What is also of interest is that none of the "professionals" signed the S249D. Smart move. Who knows who is playing who.

 

[DomainNames]

What is more concerning is how members of a small forum like DNTrade can manage to manipulate and bring down an important organisation such as auDA.

You where a Director ( albeit it very briefly and not actually elected by members for the role at all) .. take some responsibility.

You seem to have no respect for the highly skilled staff at the Government Department of Communications who have done the in depth review and report with a lot of time, effort and multi stakeholders.

I think they did an excellent job and made a document palatable for all with options for improvement clearly outlined and very generous timeframes under all circumstances.

They could not go any harder than they did in the report. It is clear it is not working and auDA is not "fit for purpose" as the Commonwealth and even Liberal Party Minister Fifield has stated.

 

[DomainNames]

What is also of interest is that none of the "professionals" signed the S249D. Smart move. Who knows who is playing who.

Wrong again... but that will come out later possibly.

The SGM organisers had so many people sign they closed the petition.
A lot of Supply people with demand memberships also signed....and apparently plenty more will at the SGM anon for their own reasons.
They have an enormous buffer 4 x ( I think they said it some place) what they needed to call it ...and auDA probably knows it.
" PETITION NOW CLOSED. THANKS TO ALL WHO SIGNED. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE!"

Anyway... let's see what they all decide. the SGM has the numbers to proceed. auDA has not said they don't.

You should respect the process and those members rights who voted their opinion.

 

[Lemon]

Wrong again... but that will come out later possibly.

The SGM organisers had so many people sign they closed the petition.
A lot of Supply people with demand memberships....
They have an enormous buffer 5 x what they needed to call it ...and auDA probably knows it.
" PETITION NOW CLOSED. THANKS TO ALL WHO SIGNED. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE!"

Anyway... let's see what they all decide. the SGM has the numbers to proceed. auDA has not said they don't.

You should respect the process and those members rights who voted their opinion.

Signing and supporting are 2 different things.
Only 50% of members in each class need to vote in favour to pass the resolutions.
Like a wise man once said, the smart money is on auDA not being here much longer.
What happens next?

 

[DomainNames]

the smart money is on auDA not being here much longer.
What happens next?

I worried less about that after 2016 when an auDA CEO told me something like this ...
"auDA could close tomorrow and things would keep going somehow..."

The Commonwealth is best to do it within the DoCA. Use their money, infrastructure, staff and powerhouse of media and contacts.

• The Wholesale registry stays with Afilias ( as long as they meet DoCA requirements)
  
• Registrars/ Resellers see no difference but perhaps benefit from a lower .au wholesale costs.
• auDA and the auDA Foundation the middle man taking the profits are taken out completely
• auDA staff can apply for jobs with DoCA
• DoCA can advertise for any other jobs filed they need
• Doca maintains activity with Icaan directly
• DoCA lists items for public tender as needed

I know people never wanted to think about it before but it is better to think how it can work and start making plans and reading how they could do it:

https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/internet-governance
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/internet-governance/domain-names

​

 

[Scott.L]

auDA for sale.
Betrayal.
Inside out destruction.
What will next week hold?
Domineers will be unified again.
These people are stupid
We have it all.
Q.

 

[Cheyne]

very few people here listen to you or take your opinions seriously I would think

I'd ask you for evidence to support your claim, but I'm still waiting for evidence on your other claims so I won't wait.

But you are right on one thing.. I AM wasting my breath here and I shall do so no more.

 

[DomainNames]

I do not think the Commonwealth / DoCA should set up another company or Statutory Authority but rather if possible work out some way to just run it from within DoCA.

I know there are some issues with the Singapore management and domain namespace model which is Government but a Sub entity. That is not the best model but at least it does appear to have some checks and balances auDA does not have.

I have not read any media about them like we have seen about auDA over the years

https://www.sgnic.sg/
https://www.sgnic.sg/company-information.html

They also run the Wholesale Registry https://www.sgnic.sg/requirements-process.html

Canada CIRA has some good things also.

The opportunity is assess what are the best models globally now and come up with something which works better without all of the fighting and personalities. As it is that will never stop with auDA, the membership model etc.

We do not want to see another "empire" built. auDA grew into a monster of high expenses and conflict.

Who knows a lot of people from different sides and opinions may even become friends after all of this once it is fixed..but I do not think it is fixable internally by auDA.. or with them paying more Consultants..