auDA request to High Court to delay SGM 2018

[Bacon Farmer]

Delaying the SGM and potential removal of the 3 independents will potentially allow them to influence the make up of the new board.

Given the lack of replacement of demand class directors of up to 5 months and corresponding lack of representation on the auDA board when dealing with matters (board votes) there is a real threat of injustice by allowing the SGM to be delayed.

There are 3 vacant demand class directorships at present. The independent directors are culpable for this situation together with the rest of the board for the delay in having balance in representation across the various classes.

A leak of a confidential auDA document has lead to one of the members having his good name besmirched in the public press. A leak the Chair has told the member concerned will not be investigated.

Another has had the validity of the right to register his work domain name questioned by auDA which has subsequently been refuted by an independent panel.

There is also a real question about the tech credentials of one of the independent directors and their ability to effectively contribute.

The cost of running a SGM compared to the bank balance of auDA is a joke. A bigger joke is the amount of funds spent on legal fees over the last 18 months.

 

[snoopy]

Not to mention the cost of keeping directors who will be removed, in legal fees and director fees it will probably cost more than the $70,000 for the SGM.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Furthermore the independents as part of the current board, are actively seeking to appoint new demand class directors who may not be auDA members nor even demand class members.

Member representation on the board should be voted on by the members not independents.

That's unfair to the members.

The current board contains 3 independents, 4 supply side directors and 1 demand side director. This is not balanced, does not reflect the spirit of the constitution and opens the board up to accusations of bias, real or not.

 

[DomainNames]

It's not the High Court It is just General Division of Fed. standard stuff really.

Federal Court of Australia District Registry Victoria
Division: General
.au Domain Administration Pty Ltd ACN 079 009 340
Applicant

 

[Bacon Farmer]

None of the members requesting the SGM agreed to an extension.

No demand class member agreed to give an extension.

That's kind of misleading don't you think.

No member not party to the SGM request could give approval for an extension and especially not supply class members.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Government representative supports the members right to requisition an SGM but swallows board concerns about smooth transition.

Hmm board members up for the chop and the sky is falling line is trotted out.

The board seems to operate smoothly without 3 demand directors so it should be able to operate equally well without 3 independent directors all of whom have been on the board less than a year.

 

[findtim]

i'll address the demand class director appointments for you all.
without breaching board confidentiality the governance committee, of which i am a part, has conducted a group of interviews and has honestly found many candidates well worth being representatives of the demand class.
bacon, sean, lemon, snoopy i didn't see you on the list of applicants and thats not having a go but just noting.

i have been at every interview, i know what you want but i also know what auda needs.

i can tell you.........( and if you guys want communication here it is).......... its been a major cause of stress on my shoulders and in the end all i can do is what i ALONE feel is right, and in the end i know for some you will say i got it wrong, others will say i got it right !

no decision has been made yet but its damn close, of course it has to be ! if tim kicks it, sh*t hits the fan, but maybe only for @ 1 hour !

regardless of a court decision we have to continue to do business.

back to the new directors, i feel confident we have a selection of candidates right now to fill the positions that will do a good fair job on the board, i will be over the coming days reviewing my interview notes to make my recommendation ( combined with the governance committees ) to the board and i feel confident they will take this advice on board.

The current board contains 3 independents, 4 supply side directors and 1 demand side director. This is not balanced

it looks that way from the outside but its not on the inside, the board is fully aware of the position the constitution has put us in and also aware of the responsibility to the demand class members base, my recommendations will be well thought out for the good of all and my criteria is that i will be able to go to bed and sleep knowing i did what i thought was best.

tim

PS: i am sorry for the structured post, it is me writing ! but right now i need to be very clear for you all.
PPS: i promise to do more typo's next time

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Apparently it cost nearly $70,000 to run the last SGM.

Of which $55k was for legal advice for the board.

C'mon you can't be serious.

How much have you racked up already on this one?

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Tim, demand directors not elected by demand class are just more independent directors which leaves the demand class less represented.

 

[findtim]

demand directors not elected by demand class.........

totally agree, but that day has gone i feel, i honestly have enjoyed interviewing a wide variety of people for the positions that i think would have not normally come to the table.
the position we are in is simply the constitution and not the board or auda and thats just a fact ! so what i can do is filter applicants and i suppose i am voting for all of you ! scary hey !!!
i suppose my search has been for the combination of the new skills base director with as deep an understanding of the domain name environment as we can get, other considerations are of course everything a director should be aware of as detailed through the AICD.

those directors like the last , once selected, will go through an induction process and i will be suggesting to the board that i be part of that to help them understand the demand class membership group more in an open QnA session, this of course would be just my viewpoint but i can tell you most applicants have a great knowledge of auda, dnt, rtp, prp crc and the gov review, they are very well researched and come the end of the day i can tell them the real story instead of the newspaper stories.

its actually quite stupid, i'm working really hard to eventually most likely be replaced by the people we select ! my commitment is to auda/stakeholders/community and getting it back on track, i feel the only way to do that is through stakeholder engagement and communication, transparency in such an environment is tricky from a security and corporate advantage lens imo but i understand fully the need for that.

and when i say stakeholder i don't mean members, i mean dubbodentist, its been my platform for a long time and until we get to that moment i will not be happy.

but truly i live for the day bacon says " findtim, you've done well" and then i'll print it and frame it.

tim

 

[snoopy]

Tim, demand directors not elected by demand class are just more independent directors which leaves the demand class less represented.

What about the ones applying from registrars?

 

[snoopy]

Tim, I believe you are half way there, direct reg is half dead it seems to me and that is the #1 concern of most members, business and the general public.

Nobody expects anything much with those directors, nobody applied because there is nothing to apply for.

auDA has attempted to push out elected directors and the situation within auDA is now a circus as they realize they are close to being non operational.

 

[findtim]

What about the ones applying from registrars?

"o ye of little faith" in me

tim

 

[snoopy]

The comment isn’t about you Tim, it is about the rumours of Angelo running which Ventraip with neither confirm not deny.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

You've in essence stolen our right to elect our representatives because you think you know better.

 

[snoopy]

I think the issue is other directors not supporting the reforms that should take place regarding the casual vacancy stuff, people like the chair who refuse to consider member wishes in these appointments.

 

[findtim]

You've in essence stolen our right...........

its been in the constitution for 17 years ! its not like we woke up yesterday and changed the rules .
by the way, i'm on your side, it should have gone to members, simons position should have been solved at the agm.
also the in balance instantly means the other class has an advantage which is something i think the constitution never intended.
i also believe if a class loses a director that class directors should appoint and not the entire board.
but unfortunately none of this is the case, so i have to work with what i've got.

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So where in the constitution is the list of new qualifications required to make the grade to be a director?

You have been snowed. It's an artificial barrier you've helped install.

In the meantime you're taking this thread off topic and making it all about you and again helping the wrong team.

 

[snoopy]

So where in the constitution is the list of new qualifications required to make the grade to be a director?.

Agree, supply and independents have been hijacking demand with their own made up criteria for a long time.

They also been intent on removing elected demand directors.

 

[DomainNames]

i'll address the demand class director appointments for you all.
without breaching board confidentiality the governance committee, of which i am a part, has conducted a group of interviews and has honestly found many candidates well worth being representatives of the demand class.
bacon, sean, lemon, snoopy i didn't see you on the list of applicants and thats not having a go but just noting.

If you did not see any of those names on the list then auDA did not provide you with the full list of Demand class members who had applied before at some stage.

That further raises very serious concerns about process and if auDA in fact wanted real Demand class members as Demand Class Directors on the auDA Board.

Whoever is chosen better have some actual real knowledge about domain names, a little bit at least about policy or auDA are again seen to have provided you with a sanitised list which in some cases they either know the candidates and want them chosen.

Let's wait and see who is chosen and do a quick check who they are linked to already at auDA, a particular political party, Government department or on the auDA Board.