auDA already in breach of new minutes policy

[snoopy]

The organisation still has unpublished minutes from November last year. Is this policy worth the paper it is written on?

I find it bizarre that they could publish this policy whilst having minutes that obviously are in breach of it. Wouldn't the obvious thing be to make sure you are currently compliant with the policy before telling members about it?

https://auda.org.au/assets/Board/2018/Preparation-and-Publication-of-Minutes-05-2018-auDA.pdf

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Just part of the brave new world auDA.

Hey we are changing look at our new policy.

 

[Cheyne]

So you asked for change, now you're getting it, and you're still complaining? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[JackBeNimble]

You've got to look at point 8 (Which admittedly is silly because they've used white text on white background) but it says

8. minutes will not be generated retroactively, items previously hidden from members shall remain so.

 

[snoopy]

So you asked for change, now you're getting it, and you're still complaining? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

There is no change because the 7 month old minutes haven't been released.

This is just about trying to save their jobs before the SGM.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So you asked for change, now you're getting it, and you're still complaining? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

There's no change, that's the poiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiint.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Definition of lip service
: : an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds

 

[DomainNames]

https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-govt-report.pdf

"Transfer of Authority for the .au ccTLD Report on auDA's Achievements and Capacity to Manage Domain Names in Australia 9 October 2000

The auDA Board strives to ensure that it conducts business in an open and accountable manner, including regularly publishing minutes of meetings and making all relevant documents available to members and the general public."

auDA not regularly publishing minutes of meetings and making all relevant documents available to members and the general public is in fact a breach of their contract with the Commonwealth Government.

They can continue to waste money on legal advice fighting it which is just putting more nails into their own coffin and wasting auDA money ( .au domain name registrant Consumer money) or they can just do it and start to be accountable and transparent.

What are they trying to hide all the time and how accurate are their minutes anyway ?

 

[findtim]

i'll follow this up.
tim

 

[joshrowe]

i'll follow this up.
tim

Thanks Tim

 

[DomainNames]

i'll follow this up.
tim

Follow what up and with who exactly?

New auDA management and Board have had this information but seem to be ignoring it.. even after the last SGM and FOI.

The Government made it very clear , fix things, cut the B.S. or lose the .au namespace management

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_boa

"https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-govt-report.pdf

"Transfer of Authority for the .au ccTLD Report on auDA's Achievements and Capacity to Manage Domain Names in Australia 9 October 2000

The auDA Board strives to ensure that it conducts business in an open and accountable manner, including regularly publishing minutes of meetings and making all relevant documents available to members and the general public." ​

 

[Scott7]

i'll follow this up.
tim

Last man standing through all the auDA controversy that has raged on for so long now.
Still posting here, despite copping it from both sides.
Thanks for sticking up for your constituents.
Kudos to you, Tim.

 

[joshrowe]

The organisation still has unpublished minutes from November last year. Is this policy worth the paper it is written on?

I find it bizarre that they could publish this policy whilst having minutes that obviously are in breach of it. Wouldn't the obvious thing be to make sure you are currently compliant with the policy before telling members about it?

https://auda.org.au/assets/Board/2018/Preparation-and-Publication-of-Minutes-05-2018-auDA.pdf

View attachment 854

auDA has no interest in being open and transparent. Nor do they want to publish a board agenda in advance of meetings. auDA does not want multi-stakeholder input, nor transparency through due process.

if only auDA took a leaf out of the NZ Domain Name Commission's approach to transparency and speed at publishing board minutes!
Domain Name Commission Limited Board Meetings
Meeting Date / Board Minutes Published Date / URL
26 April 2018 24 May 2018 https://www.dnc.org.nz/the-commission/news/1696
22 Feb 2018 27 Mar 2018 https://www.dnc.org.nz/index.php/the-commission/news/1662

 

[Scott.L]

auDA has no interest in being open and transparent. Nor do they want to publish a board agenda in advance of meetings. auDA does not want multi-stakeholder input, nor transparency through due process.

if only auDA took a leaf out of the NZ Domain Name Commission's approach to transparency and speed at publishing board minutes!
Domain Name Commission Limited Board Meetings
Meeting Date / Board Minutes Published Date / URL
26 April 2018 24 May 2018 https://www.dnc.org.nz/the-commission/news/1696
22 Feb 2018 27 Mar 2018 https://www.dnc.org.nz/index.php/the-commission/news/1662

But Why?

The members are being playing into this oppressed victim mindset, and although there’s Merit for this mindset; we can’t continue to be played by those who seek to create it.

We must get our own act together, rather than relying on a management that got us to this point. I’m astonished that we would continue to believe that they know what they are doing to save this organisation. auDA is not transparent enough to show us what they are doing about it. The narrative is lost and all that remains is a spectacle.

Look, Since the government review auDA management have only got a work group together for the purpose of designing a 'consultation process'. Time is running out, and I suspect this is exactly what they want to achieve. But why? Is it beyond the imagination to assume they don’t want auDA to exist? if so…they will do as little as possible, and by proxy of this inactivity intensify the victim mindset until, .au is re-delegated to another entity via DoC. So, I ask you - do you want auDA to exist? because as it stands, it won’t exist.

 

[Scott.L]

The consultation work group contains 16 people, yet the feedback [consultation] required from various stakeholders would only extend to about 10 people…the outreach for consultation is not deep enough to be productive in developing a model for consultation. And, even if it were, by including externally funded findings [Khoury, Doolons] they will not publish those findings. It’s a farcical notion, concocted by those who know that this is just a way to camouflage the real problem whilst portraying themselves as the good guys. We are all foolishly following the whims of a management that have shit on us, and we continue to wipe their arseholes by jumping up and down in some incoherent rant against them.

The CMWG will soon discover this for itself the moment they get together to discuss it – honestly, who are you going to reach out to…look at the PRP to see who will probably send some feedback. Yep, people who are already involved in the CMWG are not able to provide feedback, and now 16 people who may have contributed to it are excluded. so who can provide feedback...Directors of auDA who themselves are Directors of the very organisations that are considered relevant stakeholders or, those with whom are aligned to various handshakes and agreements with management. Everyone should know this is just another alley leading to a brink wall. I’m not being negative toward auDA or resisting their solutions, I’m trying to be realistic about their own reasoning for their actions, which in my opinion appear impulsive, ill-conceived and useless at achieving the desired result.

• The constitution contains no relevant succession planning strategies.
• The constitution doesn’t enable the right people to make decisions.
• The constitution doesn’t have any mechanism of accountability except what is afforded to it via the Corp Act via 249D, 249F, 250V
• The constitution contains no values to drive the behavior necessary for a healthy industry culture.
• The constitution complies with current procedural laws, but it requires housekeeping and it is not compliant with various terms of its own incorporation [registry operator status, subcontracting] neither adhering to other legal instruments [Government terms, ICANN]

The list is lengthy and complex; and after 6 moths we have only stepped into the room to consult about how to consult on the matter….?

 

[snoopy]

So, I ask you - do you want auDA to exist? because as it stands, it won’t exist.

I think a fair chuck of auDA members are in favour of a complete reboot. The chance of auDA reforming itself is low in my view. Whilst auDA management is focused on the constitution the major problem is auDA management.

 

[Scott.L]

I think a fair chuck of auDA members are in favour of a complete reboot. The chance of auDA reforming itself is low in my view. Whilst auDA management is focused on the constitution the major problem is auDA management.

Why would members want that? It appears [obvious] the attitude of management favors reboot. So, the question is, who is busy to get control of this organisation under another name? and, would it be an organisation that favors open membership, given the events over the past 2 years. Look, its obvious auDA management have no interest in reforming itself [or do not know how to do so] it has resisted efforts to reform itself, it has resisted the efforts of others to motivate it to reform.

 

[snoopy]

Why would members want that? It appears [obvious] the attitude of management favors reboot. So, the question is, who is busy to get control of this organisation under another name? and, would it be an organisation that favors open membership, given the events over the past 2 years. Look, its obvious auDA management have no interest in reforming itself [or do not know how to do so] it has resisted efforts to reform itself, it has resisted the efforts of others to motivate it to reform.

I think some members favour it as a way of changing the management entirely.

Can the organisation ever genuinely change? If the constitution is changed what will that achieve? It would fix 30% of the problem.

I don't know if they favour it or not but they will all be gone if it goes to a new entity.

 

[snoopy]

Having said all that if current management (the "inner circle") actually left that would clear the way for reform of the current organisation. I don't think it can happen with them sitting there.

 

[Scott.L]

[QUOTE
I don't know if they favour it or not but they will all be gone if it goes to a new entity.[/QUOTE]

Who can say..."they" (oligarchy) are already preparing the new entity. Their laziness to engage reform is a telling signal.