A New Member Model - Hybrid Model

[Scott.L]

This morning, I submitted to the CMWG a Membership Model composed of Both Constituency and Single Member Models - Hybrid Member Model.

The concept is basic and should resist stacking and capture; obviously, it can be 'gamed' and 'played' and I haven't comprehended everything that could be exploited in this model. Its here for everyone's criticism [make it stronger] - I guess, compromising on both Models and constructing a 3rd lends itself to a type of cooperation of concepts which may or may not be accepted by the members, but hey, at least its a crack at it.



the auDA Board is a Commercial Board composed of 7 Directors and The Membership Council is composed of 5 elected Councilors responsible for Social cohesion between Management and Members. The corporate structure is holistic, in so far as the Council has a say in the decisions of the auDA Board and the auDA Board can have a say in the Membership Councils programs, policy and agenda.

Membership:
Membership composed of industry representation, Legal Persons, and independent representation and no classes supply and demand exist.

• Composed of both legal persons (companies) and individuals (natural persons) from an Opt-Out system of automatic membership upon domain registration or;
• Voluntary OPT- In, Non-Registrant, is charged at $55.00 per-person and $175.00 per-Entity annually. No Member can pay the cost for Voluntary membership of another party.

a) Members are Australian Citizens.
b) Members are over 18 years of Age
c) Members are not subject to probity checks. [unless a candidate for election]
d) Membership is yearly
e) Membership is via Opt-Out at registration – Opt-In is chargeable at auDA Board discretion.
f) A Member exercises One Vote per Legal Person at elections.
g) Membership is non-transferable to any other legal person.
h) Membership assignment to Membership Group Representative (MGR) is transferable once every year prior to June 30th.
i) Membership eligibility to Vote in Elections – 28 days.
j) Members must not enter into voting agreements with other members, including Members as employees or employers of a Legal Person or its subsidiaries. {companies cannot self-elect}
k) Members are not employees of auDA or public servants of the commonwealth, unless permitted by the commonwealth to hold a membership, or permitted by the Commonwealth to vote at company meetings as an authorized representative.
l) A member is assigned One Vote for Membership Council Elections and;
m) A Member is assigned One Vote for auDA Board Elections under the Corporations Act 2001;
m) Councillor Elections are not subject to the Corporations Act 203D or 249D.
n) Any new industry group wishing to establish itself as a Membership Group Representative (MGR) may apply to the Membership Council for inclusion, the Membership Council will vote. Any equality of vote occurring, a casting Vote is made by the Government Appointed Representative.

Membership assignment;
The Membership is filtered via electronic mechanism, utilizing a system of defined questions for those who seek to participate on Committees and Panels; including, nomination to Membership Council Board (MCB). (as per Government Review recommendation 10) and;

Each Legal Person is filtered via an automated electronic platform. Based on voluntary information a member is automatically assigned to one of the Member Group Representative (MGR) according to their responses via the Opt-In system of assessment – .i.e. 3 multiple choice questions related to their employ or business.



For more information: Read the complete CMWG Submission attached - Here

 

[DomainNames]

View attachment 999

This morning, I submitted to the CMWG a Membership Model composed of Both Constituency and Single Member Models - Hybrid Member Model.

The concept is basic and should resist stacking and capture; obviously, it can be 'gamed' and 'played' and I haven't comprehended everything that could be exploited in this model. Its here for everyone's criticism [make it stronger] - I guess, compromising on both Models and constructing a 3rd lends itself to a type of cooperation of concepts which may or may not be accepted by the members, but hey, at least its a crack at it.

View attachment 1000

the auDA Board is a Commercial Board composed of 7 Directors and The Membership Council is composed of 5 elected Councilors responsible for Social cohesion between Management and Members. The corporate structure is holistic, in so far as the Council has a say in the decisions of the auDA Board and the auDA Board can have a say in the Membership Councils programs, policy and agenda.

Membership:
Membership composed of industry representation, Legal Persons, and independent representation and no classes supply and demand exist.

• Composed of both legal persons (companies) and individuals (natural persons) from an Opt-Out system of automatic membership upon domain registration or;
• Voluntary OPT- In, Non-Registrant, is charged at $55.00 per-person and $175.00 per-Entity annually. No Member can pay the cost for Voluntary membership of another party.

a) Members are Australian Citizens.
b) Members are over 18 years of Age
c) Members are not subject to probity checks. [unless a candidate for election]
d) Membership is yearly
e) Membership is via Opt-Out at registration – Opt-In is chargeable at auDA Board discretion.
f) A Member exercises One Vote per Legal Person at elections.
g) Membership is non-transferable to any other legal person.
h) Membership assignment to Membership Group Representative (MGR) is transferable once every year prior to June 30th.
i) Membership eligibility to Vote in Elections – 28 days.
j) Members must not enter into voting agreements with other members, including Members as employees or employers of a Legal Person or its subsidiaries. {companies cannot self-elect}
k) Members are not employees of auDA or public servants of the commonwealth, unless permitted by the commonwealth to hold a membership, or permitted by the Commonwealth to vote at company meetings as an authorized representative.
l) A member is assigned One Vote for Membership Council Elections and;
m) A Member is assigned One Vote for auDA Board Elections under the Corporations Act 2001;
m) Councillor Elections are not subject to the Corporations Act 203D or 249D.
n) Any new industry group wishing to establish itself as a Membership Group Representative (MGR) may apply to the Membership Council for inclusion, the Membership Council will vote. Any equality of vote occurring, a casting Vote is made by the Government Appointed Representative.

Membership assignment;
The Membership is filtered via electronic mechanism, utilizing a system of defined questions for those who seek to participate on Committees and Panels; including, nomination to Membership Council Board (MCB). (as per Government Review recommendation 10) and;

Each Legal Person is filtered via an automated electronic platform. Based on voluntary information a member is automatically assigned to one of the Member Group Representative (MGR) according to their responses via the Opt-In system of assessment – .i.e. 3 multiple choice questions related to their employ or business.

View attachment 1001

For more information: Read the complete CMWG Submission attached - Here

Did you look more in depth at the Canada model?

• Simple
• Free
• Achieves all multistakeholder requirements
• 15,000 members
• Protects Canada Sovereignty and Canada Critical Infrastructure
• Canada Presence requirement

https://cira.ca/membership
https://cira.ca/board-compensation
Agendas and Minutes!!! https://cira.ca/board-and-governance/meeting-agendas-and-minutes

 

[Scott.L]

CIRA financial statement 2017


CIRA membership model works because CIRA is both the Administrator and Manager of the Registry, it has the funding to employ over 85 employees, consultants, campaigns, and Community investment programs, all based around membership and their internet community. Not suggesting all expenses are membership related, considering the registry and technical functions are also part of those costs.

auDA just doesn’t have the income to support this type of model, unless it takes control of the registry contract. But that’s not going to happen for years, and who knows what will happen.

• the CIRA Nominations Committee process is not very transparent – people have complained that the process provides very limited [if any] feedback upon rejection of applicant [even if the candidate is qualified]
• The Member verification system requires ID documentation, and has raised privacy concerns about the risks associate to that provision.

Unlike the CIRA Model - The hybrid model satisfies two sides of the coin with little ongoing expense; it provides ‘diversity of membership’ [Government recommendation 10-11] via Member Group Representation which are filled by members from each industry participant, stakeholder, individual persons, achieved through free membership via Opt-Out process upon domain registration.

The membership committee is simply a membership vetting and processing platform, complaint escalation flash-point for any member issue about the auDA Board and or the Council; the council is a means to engage a wider audience, community, bringing them all together under one roof in dialogue. They must or they wont be elected to the auDA Board.

• The membership council is the accountability mechanism, they want to be elected to the auDA Board, so the council itself is going to ensure they have listened and learned from members about their concerns and solutions.
• One Councillor sits on the auDA Board, this means there is a voice on both boards, along with 5 other Directors including independents who have undertaken the process of election from out of the Membership Groups.

Yes, there will be additional costs with this model compared to what auDA currently spends, however, I believe this model will bring less criticism against auDA, more engagement, narrative, and interaction.

• It cant be politically captured by a party, unless all the Member Group Representatives are all in on it.
• It cant be captured by any commercial interest, because the Member Group Representatives are representing their own identities in relation to the Domain Registration Market.
• Councillors are busy all year, proving their value and making a contribution to the membership prior to auDA Board elections, and the same goes for those who seek election to the Membership Council.
• Independent Directors [colored blue in the diagram] are actually elected out of the Membership Group Representatives that are not directly involved in the Domain Registration Market - only the chairperson is decided by the auDA Board and that comes from the Nominations Committee - leaving only Registrars and Domainers as 'non-independent' Directors.

Those elected from the Member Groups are representatives of that member group when appointed to the Board. In doing so, this should provide social complexity by broadening the identity politics to resist capture and staking.

keep in mind all registrants are assigned to these Membership groups voluntarily, and its the representatives of those groups that must ensure the membership is engaged through actioning commitments for the success of the company.

 

[Scott.L]

I guess what I’m trying to say is this, we cant have a Board appointing itself. A membership Committee with a Nominations Committee eliminates this practice to some degree.

The other problem is this, we cant have independants appointed by the Board running the show, they need to be accountable and unbias. To achieve it, independants are to have an identity outside the Doamin Registration Market and this is where the Membership Group Representatives fulfil that requirement.

 

[trellian]

auDA just doesn’t have the income to support this type of model,

From today onwards it does. It is keeping the lions share of all registrations and renewals now.

 

[DomainNames]

From today onwards it does. It is keeping the lions share of all registrations and renewals now.

Finally someone has the balls from Supply to stand up and not be a blind sheep the what is going on and wrong with auDA Management and the Board ripping off everyone now.

More need to do something about it before they really ruin your business and your .au customers !

1. Why should the auDA CEO Cameron Boardman get a bonus? How much is it?
   
2. How much is be paid now?
3. Why should this not for profit's Directors vote to pay themselves $170,000 + expenses a year and try to hide it from members and stakeholders?
4. The list is very long. People would be shocked and call for a Full Board Spill to sack them all if they knew more!
5. Why does current auDA Management and Board refuse to disclose the names of all Consultants, how much they are all paid and any potential relationships / Conflicts of Interest between auDA staff, Liberal Party members or Board members? $Millions is being spent and wasted!

www.Grumpier.com.au
https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/vote-yes-now-grumpier-com-au.11977/#post-93521

www.Grumpier.com.au
VOTE YES FOR All 4 resolutions

Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO) VOTE YES
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director VOTE YES
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director VOTE YES
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director VOTE YES

 

[Scott.L]

What we have here is a Board corrupting itself via membership applicant process; exploited over time because the constitution contains no membership criteria that should have prevented it. Now it’s stacked to favour a few because the temptation to control auDA through branch stacking overcame them all.

Over many years memberships approved by the Board created a culture of conflict that reflects the Board and its decisions today. Its captured by the very people who are subject to representational elections and those elected are bullied to resign and replaced by directors agreeable to their aims.

We see this problem exploited by the Chair Chris Leptos who in the opinion of many should not be allowed to enter into voting agreements ,by means of the Board approving family members to vote against his removal at the SGM.

The 3 core problems at auDA are;

1. auDA Board Membership applicant approval process
2. Representative class Election
3. Casual vacancy appointments

Government Intervention would have been avoided had the Board just listened and addressed these 3 issues; instead they exploited it.

 

[DomainNames]

Scott I forwarded your submissions again to auDA and the SGM last week
auDA at no time advised the CMWG of your submissions
I am not aware of it being considered or raised at all.. you may be wasting your valuable time and input.

In my opinion the CMWG is very heavily influenced directly by auDA Management.

And to make it very clear again auDA Management chose the date and location of the auDA CMWG forum. The CMWG did NOT choose the date or want it rushed or the little notice of just 6 days.

auDA Management do not want the auDA CMWG to do minutes or to make them available to members or the Public.

CMWG was to be open , accountable and transparent but we are I feel being hindered from this by auDA Management directly.

Obviously auDA Management really wants to write the proposed member models and have their choice signed off at the AGM...The very AGM where the things like $170,000+ for Directors get approved by members or not.

Scott you are better to jump on the phone and email to contact members and get them al to vote YES for the SGM resolutions. They are not reading your stuff seriously I think, nor mine or other people's..It just gets deleted Ive been told..

The DoCA could care less if these Directors and Cameron Boardman are replaced now. Meaning they will not be sticking their public servant necks out to save them any longer . The DOCA i'm told feel they are not the only qualified people suitable for the roles.. They just want it done. Replace them is the answer.. this is up to the members to do it OR the Government will come and take it over and do an EOI.

auDA Management is spending a massive amount of money and time to just stack it and make all the can $$$. Their days are numbered and if they don't know it this is another reason they need to be replaced for being so out of touch with reality.

I am doing my best to make sure we get a real model which is not stacked and which is FREE.

A CMWG member had a good idea
.au registrants membership is FREE opt in ( covered by .au domain auDA fees)
Non .au registrants pay a small fee ( the auDA fee of a domain name)

 

[Scott.L]

Scott I forwarded your submissions again to auDA and the SGM last week
auDA at no time advised the CMWG of your submissions
I am not aware of it being considered or raised at all.. you may be wasting your valuable time and input.

In my opinion the CMWG is very heavily influenced directly by auDA Management.

And to make it very clear again auDA Management chose the date and location of the auDA CMWG forum. The CMWG did NOT choose the date or want it rushed or the little notice of just 6 days.

auDA Management do not want the auDA CMWG to do minutes or to make them available to members or the Public.

Thanks Sean, I know you would have done your best to ensure the CMWG received it - I doubt the Board and CEO give a damn about my input because they know the real problem auDA has and it continues to be exploited to their advantage by the Board and CEO to this day.

The 3 core problems at auDA are;

auDA Board Membership applicant approval process
9.9 a. The Board must determine whether or not to approve each application for Membership at the next Board meeting after receipt of the application.

• requires a membership committee to stop the board from selective invitation and branch stacking.

Representative class Election
9.5 Any Legal Person that does not qualify for Supply Class membership may apply to be a Demand Class Member.

• requires the removal of supply and demand class identities OR,
• requires a Nominations Committee to stop the now obvious demand class stacking via supply class, and to prohibit supply from remaining small enough to ensure Special Resolutions remain in their control [75% rule]

Casual vacancy appointments
19.7 b. All such appointments shall be made by instrument executed by all of the surviving or continuing Board.

• requires the nominations committee to prepare Director succession.
• it should not be up to a Board to decide this, especially when it approves member applicants that ultimately elect directors to the Board.

its that simple, government intervention was not required - it could have been prevented with simple changes. Now its a farce.

 

[Peter T]

Hi Scott,

Thanks Sean, I know you would have done your best to ensure the CMWG received it - I doubt the Board and CEO give a damn about my input because they know the real problem auDA has and it continues to be exploited to their advantage by the Board and CEO to this day.

As a member of CMWG, I received, and read your very detailed model - you bring up some great suggestions, and your model reminded me of the second option presented at the forum - the drawback of models such as these is the inherent complexity.

Representative class Election

9.5 Any Legal Person that does not qualify for Supply Class membership may apply to be a Demand Class Member.

• requires the removal of supply and demand class identities OR,
• requires a Nominations Committee to stop the now obvious demand class stacking via supply class, and to prohibit supply from remaining small enough to ensure Special Resolutions remain in their control [75% rule]

Should there be a single membership model chosen, this should no longer be an issue.

Casual vacancy appointments
19.7 b. All such appointments shall be made by instrument executed by all of the surviving or continuing Board.

• requires the nominations committee to prepare Director succession.
• it should not be up to a Board to decide this, especially when it approves member applicants that ultimately elect directors to the Board.

its that simple, government intervention was not required - it could have been prevented with simple changes. Now its a farce.

A nominations committee should be part of the new model; a great deal of responsibility and power remains with that nominations committee, as committee's responsibility to mitigate conflicts/stacking.

 

[Scott.L]

Should there be a single membership model chosen, this should no longer be an issue.

how do you prevent Big networks from stacking the election - its easy for a Telstra, MelbIT, or any big employee network or Member Network ACS to promote their brand of .au Direction. it will only be to their advantage to unify their opinions through it.

• single membership [free for all] across multiple designated industry classes limits this network building because the members assigned to these groups are contestable enough through the nomination process to curtail stacking of a the majority of members across other industry classes [limits them to one industry].
• the council is the second vetting process that enables the ALL members a front row seat to see who they are and what they can do. {no more hiding behind this board of secrecy - let see what you can do.}

A nominations committee should be part of the new model; a great deal of responsibility and power remains with that nominations committee, as committee's responsibility to mitigate conflicts/stacking.

• Yes, The Nominations Committee is the cornerstone for good governance [Membership Committee - Nominations Committee - auDA BOARD] - it is a very useful process, it must contain some very rigorous policy and procedural mechanisms, including Government involvement or oversight. [this shit cant happen again.]

you need to create a certain amount of social complexity to make it interactive and engaging. A single model is not effective - it will build massive controlling networks that again will rig the system. Alternatively, a single membership model must have membership applicant criteria to break down or prevent stacking. How ? well that's the great puzzle for you guys to figure out.

 

[Jimboot]

I love the ideas Scott. I take your point Peter but auda needs to reflect the whole Australian Internet Community, not special interests. For instance we have Affilias and other registrars signing up all their employees, non residents/citizens no questions asked. When Australian business owners sign up the very same week, they have to be phone interviewed and approved by AUDA! Australian owners of domain names have to jump through more hoops than foreign employees of registrars... who don't even own AU domains. I think everyone who buys a .AU becomes an AUDA member and the fee that they are paying AUDA as part of their AU reg fee, should be clearly separated on the invoice. Yes it's complex but simplicity atm leads to obvious abuse.

 

[snoopy]

For instance we have Affilias and other registrars signing up all their employees, non residents/citizens no questions asked. When Australian business owners sign up the very same week, they have to be phone interviewed and approved by AUDA! Australian owners of domain names have to jump through more hoops than foreign employees of registrars... who don't even own AU domains. I think everyone who buys a .AU becomes an AUDA member and the fee that they are paying AUDA as part of their AU reg fee, should be clearly separated on the invoice. Yes it's complex but simplicity atm leads to obvious abuse.

I think the CMWG needs to address this issue - publicly. It is the elephant in room. How can there be a real vote on reform where hundreds of foreign people have been signed up to stack that very vote? Has the CMWG discussed this issue?

This vote should be about genuine members, the Australian internet community. It should not be about vested interests, not Chinese/Indonesian foreign nationals voting.

If a model is proposed and members vote it in then good. But if a model is proposed and the vote is "corrupted" by foreign nationals voting yes then does that fix things?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

One of the CMWG (non member) specifically suggested that those people should get a vote on the new models despite my pointing out the fact they were substantially foreign and 100% supply side employees.

The CMWG has Captain's pick members. They are easy to identify because they aren't members. So is it branch stacking in the CMWG too?

 

[Scott.L]

I think the CMWG needs to address this issue - publicly. It is the elephant in room. How can there be a real vote on reform where hundreds of foreign people have been signed up to stack that very vote? Has the CMWG discussed this issue?

This vote should be about genuine members, the Australian internet community. It should not be about vested interests, not Chinese/Indonesian foreign nationals voting.

If a model is proposed and members vote it in then good. But if a model is proposed and the vote is "corrupted" by foreign nationals voting yes then does that fix things?

It's down right offensive. The Board has a duty to act in the best interest of the company. It hasn't done that with this decision. And;

Everyone knows the constitution is a contract with the Australian Internet Community based in Australia, it's for the benefit of ALL Australians, its not a contract with Yu Choo Pho in a China call centre. And;

I doubt the Directors agreeable to this decision will redeem themselves by overturning this decision, its not an option...they have already sold their souls to the Devil.

 

[snoopy]

One of the CMWG (non member) specifically suggested that those people should get a vote on the new models despite my pointing out the fact they were substantially foreign and 100% supply side employees.

The CMWG has Captain's pick members. They are easy to identify because they aren't members. So is it branch stacking in the CMWG too?

I would say it is possibly captured by Cameron.

They’ll have input on specifics of the model but auDA has rigged the vote.

 

[Scott.L]

The Consultation Model Working Group has been able to recommend to auDA’s board that a single member class membership model, consistent with ‘Model C’ in the document, should form the basis of a new membership model.
https://www.auda.org.au/news/from-the-cmwg-member-consultation-report-and-save-the-date/

Membership Model Option C: Single Member Class

• A single member class model would allow any individual, corporate, or institution (legal person) to become an auDA member with equal weighting.
• Members could apply to join through direct application to auDA.
• Alternatively, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) model could be adopted, in which all unique registrants are offered membership. In Canada, this has led to close to 15,000 members, with some 10 per cent involved in governance activities, including director elections.
• There are no membership fees under this model.
• A complication with a single member class system is that it might overlap significantly with organisations like Internet Australia, whose membership model is identical.

 

[trellian]

Anyone look at the DENIC model? used for .de?

 

[Peter T]

Anyone look at the DENIC model? used for .de?

Anything specific that you can point out?

 

[trellian]

seems like a fair model, all profits made are re-distributed to members. There are fother benefits, so was just wondering if anyone has looked at their model in depth?