auDA threatens SGM & Members with Court
- Thread starter DomainNames
- Start date
I expect the auDA Board will be rubbing their hands in delight at this schism between members.
Ian, I take exception to your statement that the grumpier initiative is a small group of members can “manipulate and bring down an important organisation such as auDA”.
From my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. Josh, Jim and I have made clear that we are all approaching this matter from very different perspectives.
Josh and I invested a heck of a lot of time in trying to make auDA the best organisation it could be. That remains our goal. We do NOT seek to “bring it down”.
By the way, your language about costs and personal liability is disconcerting. That is simply not how member-led motions work under the Corporations Act. AuDA may choose to incur costs in contesting a valid action by members. That is rightly up to the Board to decide. However, if an organisation were able to “threaten” members with personal liability, then the entire concept of an empowered membership model (according to said legislation) would be completely undermined.
Think about it on a bigger scale than our small pond - say NRMA members petition for an SGM against their Board....that requires a lot of votes and support. It can get very messy but there is never a question of personal liability upon members. It happened.
Search for NRMA SGM 2002. The real question is whether we want to head down this rabbit hole and the associated mud slinging and reputational damage.
I, personallly, do not - but I am yet to see a genuine attempt at reconciliation and bridge-building. Until I see that from auDA, I will, regrettably, continue to support a call for an SGM
Ian, I take exception to your statement that the grumpier initiative is a small group of members can “manipulate and bring down an important organisation such as auDA”.
From my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. Josh, Jim and I have made clear that we are all approaching this matter from very different perspectives.
Josh and I invested a heck of a lot of time in trying to make auDA the best organisation it could be. That remains our goal. We do NOT seek to “bring it down”.
By the way, your language about costs and personal liability is disconcerting. That is simply not how member-led motions work under the Corporations Act. AuDA may choose to incur costs in contesting a valid action by members. That is rightly up to the Board to decide. However, if an organisation were able to “threaten” members with personal liability, then the entire concept of an empowered membership model (according to said legislation) would be completely undermined.
Think about it on a bigger scale than our small pond - say NRMA members petition for an SGM against their Board....that requires a lot of votes and support. It can get very messy but there is never a question of personal liability upon members. It happened.
Search for NRMA SGM 2002. The real question is whether we want to head down this rabbit hole and the associated mud slinging and reputational damage.
I, personallly, do not - but I am yet to see a genuine attempt at reconciliation and bridge-building. Until I see that from auDA, I will, regrettably, continue to support a call for an SGM
Jimboot
Top Contributor
You have made a claim in a public forum about me that is untrue. Please remove it.
Lemon
Top Contributor
Paul,
My statement had nothing to do with the grumpier campaign. It was an observation based on the events of the past 2 years and the signatures on the document calling for a SGM just add to the story.
Thanks for clearing that up. As I said I am not a lawyer, or an expert in the Corporations Act, and I was just pointing out the risks. I am sure your legal advice, presumably from those with experience in the Corporations Act and the auDA Constitution, is excellent.
The horse has bolted. Jim and Josh have done a great effort in getting mainstream media coverage. You wanted to be in the spotlight so now deal with it.
Excellent. Full steam ahead then. Let's get this over and done with. No backing out.
I look forward to hearing news from auDA later today in their communication with members.
Last edited:
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
There's no schism, just sour grapes from those that didn't get voted in at the last election (Lemon) or their supporters (Cheyme).
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Cheyne You have made false and misleading claims in a public forum about various auDA members you chose to name and their families that is untrue.
Please have your false and misleading claims removed.
Last edited:
Lemon
Top Contributor
Thanks David,
I can fully understand why you would sign the SGM notice.
Where are you elected candidates now?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Do you think Non elected Board Directors are better then real elected Directors?
Lemon
Top Contributor
According to the Government Review future directors need to be assessed on their skill set and experience not on a popularity contest.
Where are your elected candidates now? That is correct they are being replaced by non-elected directors.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
So there's no chance for you being elected under the current system nor appointed under the proposed new system?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
I can see a Cheyne Johnston back in 2012 but that's not you I suppose unless they did a typo.
Cheyne Johnston doesn't seem to be an auDA member anymore.
Quoted
"Board Minutes - Feb 20, 2012
Public Version
Meeting of the .au Domain Administration Board
20 February 2012, 11.00am
.au Domain Administration Limited. 114 Cardigan Street. Carlton VIC 3053
9. Membership The following membership applications were approved in the classes indicated:
Public Version
Meeting of the .au Domain Administration Board
20 February 2012, 11.00am
.au Domain Administration Limited. 114 Cardigan Street. Carlton VIC 3053
9. Membership The following membership applications were approved in the classes indicated:
- Angelo Giuffrida Demand
- Cheyne Johnston Demand
- VentraIP Group (Aust P/L (Angelo Giuffrida) Supply "
Last edited:
DomainNames
Top Contributor
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Demand
AusRegistry Pty Ltd Supply
I think the concerns have been noted by all now of many. Let's see what the Government review achieves.
The auDA membership model just does not seem to work and it causes ongoing friction.
"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.
.................... Carried unanimously.
Action: The board to set up a sub-committee to consider demand class membership issues."
Last edited:
snoopy
Top Contributor
Possibly the one that started it all off (at least the very blatant stacking) and set auDA on the course it is on now.
Cheyne
Top Contributor
Are you able to clarify for me what I said that was untrue? I could be reading the letter wrong but I was under the impression that only members could call for an SGM?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Wake up Cheyne and have the guts to take my phone calls..from last week and again today.. I have taken the time to reach out to you personally but you prefer to keep going here so be it.
Also for the record do not quote me or complain to others as writing anything when I did not and you incorrectly possibly deliberately cut and paste quotes from the public media ...making it appear that I wrote it when a journalist did.
Cut the false and misleading representations of others to try and gain some support.
Any comments on this? Did you join as a Demand class member and they did a typo?
Whoever Cheyne Johnston was either they chose to not renew or maybe had their membership cancelled... who knows.... We rarely know much when auDA deletes minutes and there has to be an SGM called to get them back up...
Like many of the once deleted auDA Board minutes these are actually on the Commonwealth's public website files. I am not sure if the FOI made this happen or the 2017 SGM.
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_boa
"Board Minutes - Feb 20, 2012
Public Version
Meeting of the .au Domain Administration Board
20 February 2012, 11.00am
.au Domain Administration Limited. 114 Cardigan Street. Carlton VIC 3053
9. Membership The following membership applications were approved in the classes indicated:
Public Version
Meeting of the .au Domain Administration Board
20 February 2012, 11.00am
.au Domain Administration Limited. 114 Cardigan Street. Carlton VIC 3053
9. Membership The following membership applications were approved in the classes indicated:
- Angelo Giuffrida Demand
- Cheyne Johnston Demand
- VentraIP Group (Aust P/L (Angelo Giuffrida) Supply "
Last edited:
Cheyne
Top Contributor
What on earth does me applying to be a demand member back in 2012 have to do with anything? I never renewed my membership after the first year because I didn't see the point in it at the time.
You are currently listed as both a member of supply and demand. So what? What point are you trying to make?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
SGM related response sent to auDA sent today by Josh Rowe.
All members should unite to support the right of auDA Members to call an SGM and for auDA to not waste auDA funds or resources with tactics to avoid the inevitable.
The government report very clearly itemises issues with auDA's management of the .au namespace
Members have the right to vote as they see fit at the SGM
www.Grumpier.com.au
Members should also make sure that no people are targeted, threatened in anyway. This should be a major concern to Government and law enforcement to keep an eye on.
People who are aware of targeting and / or threats of any nature should contact the Government and law enforcement immediately.
_________________________________________________________________
QUOTED
"RE: Response to requisitioned meeting
On Friday 20 April 2018 at 6:04pm I received a letter from .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) requesting an extension of time to hold the member requested Special General Meeting (SGM). auDA provided a deadline of 4.00pm Monday 23 April 2018 – a single business day – to respond to this request.
This request for an extension of time is extremely disappointing.
auDA is a Membership Organisation that is accountable to a range of stakeholders. auDA has failed to adequately consult with Members and stakeholders. Communication and transparency with Members has been inadequate. auDA leadership has failed to retain key board members and staff.
auDA is at an important juncture following the Australian Government’s review. However, it is critical that people with the right skills and experience lead auDA through its reform.
Members have lost confidence in the auDA CEO, and the three auDA independent directors. They do not have the right skills and experience to lead auDA through its reform.
Therefore, the SGM should proceed pursuant to section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The law is very clear.
auDA Members are not in a position to fund any legal challenge to their right to request an SGM. Please table this letter with the court and your previous correspondence on this matter.
Kind regards
Joshua Rowe
auDA Member 2000 – current
auDA Non Executive Director 2001 – 2015"
All members should unite to support the right of auDA Members to call an SGM and for auDA to not waste auDA funds or resources with tactics to avoid the inevitable.
The government report very clearly itemises issues with auDA's management of the .au namespace
Members have the right to vote as they see fit at the SGM
www.Grumpier.com.au
Members should also make sure that no people are targeted, threatened in anyway. This should be a major concern to Government and law enforcement to keep an eye on.
People who are aware of targeting and / or threats of any nature should contact the Government and law enforcement immediately.
_________________________________________________________________
QUOTED
"RE: Response to requisitioned meeting
On Friday 20 April 2018 at 6:04pm I received a letter from .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) requesting an extension of time to hold the member requested Special General Meeting (SGM). auDA provided a deadline of 4.00pm Monday 23 April 2018 – a single business day – to respond to this request.
This request for an extension of time is extremely disappointing.
auDA is a Membership Organisation that is accountable to a range of stakeholders. auDA has failed to adequately consult with Members and stakeholders. Communication and transparency with Members has been inadequate. auDA leadership has failed to retain key board members and staff.
auDA is at an important juncture following the Australian Government’s review. However, it is critical that people with the right skills and experience lead auDA through its reform.
Members have lost confidence in the auDA CEO, and the three auDA independent directors. They do not have the right skills and experience to lead auDA through its reform.
Therefore, the SGM should proceed pursuant to section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The law is very clear.
auDA Members are not in a position to fund any legal challenge to their right to request an SGM. Please table this letter with the court and your previous correspondence on this matter.
Kind regards
Joshua Rowe
auDA Member 2000 – current
auDA Non Executive Director 2001 – 2015"
Last edited:
Cheyne
Top Contributor
Paul, what Angelo does is his own private business. It was a confidential application process and whether he did or didn't apply is nobody elses business but his own. Nobody else on these forums has said whether or not they applied and nor should they need to.
But allow me to put it to you this way, and please just put away the pitchfork for just a second.
You quite clearly support the SGM, which means you also support the removal of the independent directors. At this moment there are three demand seats to be filled by people who auDA have asked to have more broader experience with company and corporate governance. What do you think is going to happen next?
Since they are casual vacancies there is no requirement for those people to even be members, let alone demand members, and so you can surmise that more people of the same or similar ilk who you are trying to get rid of through the SGM are on the way.
Having said this, if Angelo had applied then I would say that you would much rather somebody fill at least one of those chairs who is actually a demand member, is a known quantity, and has a good deal of first hand experience to speak of. You may not agree with his views on some topics, but at the very least you know that he is not going to be a 'yes' man and is going to actually listen to people and genuinely help to get the Government reforms through.
But to put you out of your misery, I'm very confident that he is not on the shortlist of candidates because they have already been contacted and I would have known by now if they had contacted him (our walls are pretty thin), so now you can sit and wonder like the rest of us just who they are planning on bringing in.
