Branch stacking!
- Thread starter snoopy
- Start date
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Some new auDA members who are family of the "Independent Chair" Chris Leptos who is facing removal at the SGM?
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/membership/membership-list
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/membership/membership-list
- Alex Leptos
- Helen Leptos
- Lillian Leptos
- Luci Leptos
- Julia Trafford
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Did they get signed up to vote no I wonder?It seems to be strange timing?
Did they get a phone call from auDA to confirm why they are joining?
https://grumpier.com.au/
Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director
Did they get a phone call from auDA to confirm why they are joining?
https://grumpier.com.au/
Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director
Last edited:
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
LOL we are go for branch stacking.
How embarrassing.
If I were a decent public servant, I'd be reaching for the plug.
C'mon this is the "independent" Chair.
Well that explains the new and improved transparent membership application process.
Might explain the slow publishing of the minutes.
Do you reckon Afilias or other supply side employees should be allowed to be demand members? Do you think that's a conflict of interest? Do you think they would vote on issues with their supply side employers?
How embarrassing.
If I were a decent public servant, I'd be reaching for the plug.
C'mon this is the "independent" Chair.
Well that explains the new and improved transparent membership application process.
Might explain the slow publishing of the minutes.
Do you reckon Afilias or other supply side employees should be allowed to be demand members? Do you think that's a conflict of interest? Do you think they would vote on issues with their supply side employers?
Last edited:
Scott.L
Top Contributor
The FEB 2018 confirms those who were admitted as members prior to the calling of the SGM. Since that meeting there have been NO published member admissions in the minutes to date?
so, How can there be over 50 New Members added to the membership without it being published in the public minutes?
By publishing the new members in the minutes, the public and the members can kind of vet that a member was entered as a member at that meeting – it’s a way to track the 3-month rule [eligibility to vote 16.1 b]
if my calculations are correct. This means that a member eligible to vote at the SGM ended 26th of April. However, we can clearly see that there are NO new members recorded in the minutes for the months that follow the 13th Feb 2018 including the May 11th Minutes. So who knows how many were entered during that time or during the month of May until June. And, can we trust the date they entered the member as per auDA 10 REGISTER OF MEMBERS
Why keep this secret, and even if its not, why change a perfectly good practice - it makes them look dodgy and guilty as Hell.
Jimboot
Top Contributor
INteresting. Ive been actively campaigning around the country the last couple of months for domain owners to become members. It's taken at least 2 months for at least 2 people I know to get membership approved. I spoke in front of about 700 ppl 10 days ago imploring them to become members and to get involved in auDA.
snoopy
Top Contributor
Seems many people are seeing it the same way.
http://www.domainpulse.com/2018/06/14/auda-branchstacking-ahead-sgm/
http://www.domainpulse.com/2018/06/14/auda-branchstacking-ahead-sgm/
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Wow http://www.domainpulse.com/2018/06/14/auda-branchstacking-ahead-sgm/
"
Is auDA Facilitating Branchstacking Ahead of SGM?
Allegations of branchstacking have surfaced ahead of the upcoming auDA Special General Meeting with supply class members rumoured to be encouraging staff to join along with what appears to be family members of the Chair Chris Leptos.
The allegations also include a rumour that leading supply organisations may also be offering to subsidise membership fees, a move that is against the rules of auDA, but has possibly been agreed to through an undeclared imprimatur of auDA management.
To be clear, according to the rules auDA members must pay for their own membership and it cannot be paid on their behalf – at least this has been the case in the past. The 13 February minutes indicate the Board ‘noted’ an update to Membership Application Processing Policy and requested an amendment to Membership Application Policy. However, in typical auDA fashion of late – these changes remain secret – so much for improved transparency.
As of 28 May 2018 there were 356 Demand and Supply members listed on the auDA website, up from 311 as of 15 February when there were no members with the surname “Leptos”. There were 318 members as of 29 June 2017 and 286 in January 2017. The spikes in membership could easily be attributed to the leadup to the Special General Meetings, the first in July 2017, and the next to vote on the removal of 3 independent directors, including the Chair, and a vote of no-confidence in CEO Cameron Boardman in July 2018. However, the surge in members in 2017 was not accompanied by allegations of anyone paying membership dues other than the members themselves, while in 2018 these rumours are circulating.
It remains to be seen how many new members may suddenly appear ahead of the July SGM, and whether there are common threads to existing auDA directors or influential supply organisations – to either dispel or affirm the conspiracy theories circulating.
It all comes on top of rumours circulating that the wholesale fee for .au domain names will only be decreasing by 10% with additional costs being passed on to registrars, despite auDA’s boasting about leveraging a more competitive wholesale fee through the Registry Transformation Project.
Meanwhile at the auDA board meeting held in April, all directors voted a huge increase in fees paid to independent directors, the very same directors that are faced with a vote to oust them at the upcoming Special General Meeting."
Is auDA Facilitating Branchstacking Ahead of SGM?
Allegations of branchstacking have surfaced ahead of the upcoming auDA Special General Meeting with supply class members rumoured to be encouraging staff to join along with what appears to be family members of the Chair Chris Leptos.
The allegations also include a rumour that leading supply organisations may also be offering to subsidise membership fees, a move that is against the rules of auDA, but has possibly been agreed to through an undeclared imprimatur of auDA management.
To be clear, according to the rules auDA members must pay for their own membership and it cannot be paid on their behalf – at least this has been the case in the past. The 13 February minutes indicate the Board ‘noted’ an update to Membership Application Processing Policy and requested an amendment to Membership Application Policy. However, in typical auDA fashion of late – these changes remain secret – so much for improved transparency.
As of 28 May 2018 there were 356 Demand and Supply members listed on the auDA website, up from 311 as of 15 February when there were no members with the surname “Leptos”. There were 318 members as of 29 June 2017 and 286 in January 2017. The spikes in membership could easily be attributed to the leadup to the Special General Meetings, the first in July 2017, and the next to vote on the removal of 3 independent directors, including the Chair, and a vote of no-confidence in CEO Cameron Boardman in July 2018. However, the surge in members in 2017 was not accompanied by allegations of anyone paying membership dues other than the members themselves, while in 2018 these rumours are circulating.
It remains to be seen how many new members may suddenly appear ahead of the July SGM, and whether there are common threads to existing auDA directors or influential supply organisations – to either dispel or affirm the conspiracy theories circulating.
It all comes on top of rumours circulating that the wholesale fee for .au domain names will only be decreasing by 10% with additional costs being passed on to registrars, despite auDA’s boasting about leveraging a more competitive wholesale fee through the Registry Transformation Project.
Meanwhile at the auDA board meeting held in April, all directors voted a huge increase in fees paid to independent directors, the very same directors that are faced with a vote to oust them at the upcoming Special General Meeting."
findtim
Top Contributor
i've approved all membership applications so far in 2018 as per the constitution.
the leptos family memberships are within guidelines and we could name many other families in the same boat.
the board has to operate within the constitution and can not pick and chose which to adhere to and which to ignore.
tim
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Whilst I have some faith in what you say regarding processing the correct date for members, it is obvious in the minutes that new members were not published but concealed, and this type of activity raises that serious question about what motivated it.
Of course; and, who in their right mind is going to raise an SGM using 11.2 Prohibition on Voting Agreements as their argument, When it's the Board approval process that enabled it.
now no-one can cast the first stone, yet you throw them at us
Last edited:
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Are there other directors subject of the upcoming SGM vote, branch stacking too?
Scott.L
Top Contributor
The entire issue about supply/demand membership stacking resulted from the Boards membership approval process, and not from the applicant. As a result, this decision making process to approve a Member is based on the Constitutions limited capacity to prohibit against supply/demand class stacking; it contains no criteria to oppose it, thereby enabling it, without the Board being held accountable for it.
snoopy
Top Contributor
I think it is unprecedented for an independent auDA director to obtain a whole lot of demand memberships via related parties. How can Mr Leptos be genuinely an "independent" director if he controls 5 demand memberships?
I don't doubt that they had to be approved as per the constitution but where does this now leave auDA?
snoopy
Top Contributor
I presume this is because the Federal Court did not grant auDA the length of extension asked for.
findtim
Top Contributor
well thats just maths as its always been, they will be allowed to vote at the agm as will any members approved tomorrow.
tim
Scott.L
Top Contributor
I'm surprised the auDA Board continues to approve applicants for membership using a constitution that enables membership stacking.
.
