More auDA propaganda

[Bacon Farmer]

More disinformation from auDA HQ.

"What is most surprising to me is that a small number of members are criticising the new $12 million Marketing and Innovation Fund that will be used to grow the .au namespace. The fact is that auDA now has more funds, and those funds are being ploughed back into lower wholesale prices, and programs that will benefit participants in the .au namespace, rather than benefiting the private owners of the former registry operator. On any reasoned analysis, this is a good thing."

Chris conveniently forgets to mention the registrant is not getting their share of the 60% cost reduction and that 50% is being hoovered up for auDA's slush fund... er "Marketing Initiative". The one that benefits registries and consultants.

Hey Chris you forgot to welcome the new members, the ones from the Ukraine, China and the Philippines.

You know the new group of members who make up probably greater than 50% of total members.

The ones who will determine the membership model at the AGM!

PS - are there any details of this great "Marketing Initiative" anywhere or were the members consulted?

 

[Scott.L]

I have been watching with dismay the online commentary by a small number of auDA members who seem determined to undermine the good work of auDA, and by extension the .au community.

translate:

We [the members] have been watching with dismay the destruction of "Member Elected Demand Class Directors" by a small number of Directors at auDA who seem determined to undermine the good work of auDA, and by extension the .au community.

They are entitled to have their views. However, we should also acknowledge that auDA does not exist just for some of its outspoken members. auDA is a vital part of Australia’s digital infrastructure. auDA is also a quasi-regulator of the .au namespace with over a million unique registrants, and many millions more who rely on a safe and stable .au domain.

translate:

As the Chair of auDA along with the Board, We are also entitled to have our views. However, I should also acknowledge that no other person except the Board of auDA exist, and we wont accept the opinions of those outspoken members, we welcome only those who agree with our secret plans.

[.] Is this the type of crap the Board talks about and puts together in their Board Meetings?

 

[DomainNames]

sickening current auDA CEO, Chair and Board are wasting auDA Funds on their propaganda and lies.

1. Cameron Boardman auDA current CEO - How much are you being paid? What is your performance Bonus?
   
2. Chris Leptos auDA current Board chair - How much are you being paid? How can you vote to pay yourself $170,000 + expenses.. The CIRA chair receives $20,000 and they even donate it to charity! https://cira.ca/board-compensation "Board members can also donate their compensation to a charity of their choice."

Gone are the days of auDA being run as a not for profit for the benefit of the australian internet community. It has been hijacked by profiteers and "jobs / deals/ contracts for the boys".

 

[DomainNames]

auDA have spent over $1 million on PR spin under current auDA CEO and Chair..... $1 MILLION of auDA funds to justify their own roles and B.S. lies why not to sack them!

Absolutely disgusting.

VOTE YES
VOTE FOR
www.Grumpier.com.au
USE THIS FORM TO VOTE "FOR"
https://grumpier.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Notice-of-General-Meeting-Proxy-Form-Vote-FOR-REMOVAL-OF-DIRECTORS.pdf

 

[Bacon Farmer]

More BS:
"auDA is a vital part of Australia’s digital infrastructure. auDA is also a quasi-regulator of the .au namespace with over a million unique registrants, and many millions more who rely on a safe and stable .au domain."

This is from the Chair who has overseen the membership base of auDA go from being predominantly Australian to predominantly Ukranian, Chinese and Philippino.

How the f@ck does that provide a safe and stable future for .au domains?

Why did you bother making Neustar get security clearance when you don't even have the decency to follow your membership protocol for individual members.

How's the security rating now Suzie Ewart (Chair of the Security and Risk committee)?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

"The fact is that auDA now has more funds, and those funds are being ploughed back into lower wholesale prices, and programs that will benefit participants in the .au namespace, rather than benefiting the private owners of the former registry operator. On any reasoned analysis, this is a good thing."

Austregistry used to get $6 and auDA $3; now Afilias gets $3 and auDA gets $6 and the person paying (the registrant) the $9 gets no effective change in cost at all.

So auDA the not for profit organisation gets to fill up it's slush fund er marketing program to pass the pork out to it's consultants. How much has been spent on legal fees and consultants in the last 24 months?

Why is auDA the domain administrator involved in marketing - according to your website, your role isn't to market the .au domains it's to administer it. You aren't a commercial organisation seeking to skim funds off the top for your own marketing program that hasn't even been put to members (sorry demand members).

How's that for a reasoned analysis?

If you dropped the price by $3 demand would actually rise - it's economics 101 duh.

 

[joshrowe]

The elephant in the room is that auDA - as regulator - now has the ability to directly influence price in the market.
That's right, the non-profit regulator auDA has both commercial and regulation drivers.
Did that go through any multi-stakeholder bottom up consultation Cameron Boardman, auDA CEO?
Previously the auDA Competition Advisory Panel would be assembled to engage with the broader community, and then provide the auDA board with advice on competition issues like this.
Has auDA really thought the potential complications which could arise from being both the regulator and "registrar marketing subsidy" provider?
If I was a supply class member voting for the removal of directors at the SGM, what's to stop auDA from "punishing" the registrar/reseller by withholding marketing subsidies?
I have sent this exact question to the Chris Leptos, auDA Chair and received a non-answer.

 

[Scott.L]

The elephant in the room is that auDA - as regulator - now has the ability to directly influence price in the market.
That's right, the non-profit regulator auDA has both commercial and regulation drivers.
Did that go through any multi-stakeholder bottom up consultation Cameron Boardman, auDA CEO?
Previously the auDA Competition Advisory Panel would be assembled to engage with the broader community, and then provide the auDA board with advice on competition issues like this.
Has auDA really thought the potential complications which could arise from being both the regulator and "registrar marketing subsidy" provider?
If I was a supply class member voting for the removal of directors at the SGM, what's to stop auDA from "punishing" the registrar/reseller by withholding marketing subsidies?
I have sent this exact question to the Chris Leptos, auDA Chair and received a non-answer.

A mind blowing argument - The RFT documentation should have specified the price regulation mechanism that auDA (or the ACCC) intends to use to ensure that “monopoly profits" don’t accrue to the successful registry tenderer and "auDA" itself.

If I was a supply class member voting for the removal of directors at the SGM, what's to stop auDA from "punishing" the registrar/reseller by withholding marketing subsidies?

Yeah, non-visible transactions via the "Marketing Fund" opens the door to every type of abuse possible [especially if supply are muzzled by registrar agreement provisions or other] auDA could easily exclude the interests of end users of domain name services whilst Coordinating price adjustment exercises to modify the behavior of Supply related entities using punishment and reward tactics.

 

[snoopy]

I suspect the $12million fund is pork barrelling for the SGM & AGM.

 

[Scott.L]

I suspect the $12million fund is pork barrelling for the SGM & AGM.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 46
Misuse of market power
corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in:

You know, auDA should rethink their Pricing. It could be easily argued that the regulator is in a position to effect the life cycle of a company it regulates. And, if this is "Pork Barreling" for votes, what a great example of their abuse of Power.

 

[DomainNames]

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 46
Misuse of market power
corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in:

You know, auDA should rethink their Pricing. It could be easily argued that the regulator is in a position to effect the life cycle of a company it regulates. And, if this is "Pork Barreling" for votes, what a great example of their abuse of Power.

Lock them up?

Is it true the current auDA CEO Cameron Boardman was Court-Martialled from the Royal Military College - Duntroon
Why was he Court- Martialled? ( He told me he was Court-Martialled but not the reason)

Do stakeholders deserve to know now auDA has such massive funds under current management and their control to spend how they want?
https://www.army.gov.au/taxonomy/term/132
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_aud#outgoing-4446

 

[snoopy]

Importantly, I can also say that our CEO, Mr Cameron Boardman, enjoys the full confidence of the auDA board.

Ouch!

 

[DomainNames]

Ouch!

 

[snoopy]

Question: Why has Mr Leptos still not responded to very serious allegations of board endorsed branch stacking of demand class? Surely this email would have been the perfect opportunity to speak about it?

 

[joshrowe]

Question: Why has Mr Leptos still not responded to very serious allegations of board endorsed branch stacking of demand class? Surely this email would have been the perfect opportunity to speak about it?

Indeed, especially when there appear to be a substantial number of overseas members which now have a the ability to vote out the entire board!

I’m pretty sure there’s something in the auDA constitution which prohibits voting agreements.

 

[snoopy]

I’m pretty sure there’s something in the auDA constitution which prohibits voting agreements.

Very interesting,

11.2 Prohibition on Voting Agreements
A Member must not enter into or give effect to any contract, arrangement or understanding under which the Member (or any associate of the Member) has or will receive any material benefit in consideration for voting in a particular way (including not voting) on any matter before a general meeting including any election. (Inserted by Special Resolution, 27 November 2003.)

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/#11.2

 

[DomainNames]

What have auDA and Chris Leptos not done any investigations about the leaking of the Top Secret auDA PPB Advisory report? ..The deliberate leaking which tried to smear SGM organisers in the public.

Doesn't this seem strange when auDA current Chair Chris Leptos the "independent chair" also is linked to PPB Advisory who did the report and was paid a lot to do it? How can they be paid when he is the Chair? Conflicts of Interest?
https://www.ppbadvisory.com/our-experts/chris-leptos-am/

Why did Chris Leptos sign up his personal family as auDA voting demand class members when he is supposed to be an "independent"?

It looks pretty bad for me. There are 100+ reasons of serious concern against the current auDA CEO, management and Board I suggest everyone in Supply and Demand vote FOR the removal of Chris Leptos.

How much has PPB Advisory been paid out of auDA funds ( .au domain name Cionsumer money) ? Has Chris Leptos in any way gained from this deal and the payments to them?

Supply and Demand Members help make auDA better. Help end the problems. Vote FOR their removal and get in people who can do the job required of Government and stakeholders.

We need Accountability and Transparency from auDA and the Board not their paid lies and PR spin they have been wasting auDA funds on. Funds they have made from ripping off Registrars, Resellers and .au Consumers.
https://grumpier.com.au/wp-content/...-Proxy-Form-Vote-FOR-REMOVAL-OF-DIRECTORS.pdf

 

[Scott.L]

I have been watching with dismay the online commentary by a small number of auDA members who seem determined to undermine the good work of auDA, and by extension the .au community.

Mr. Leptos,

• Define ".au Community"

GAC Principle 9.1.6 & 8

• All .au registrations require the registrant to be resident in Australia

4. ROLE OF DELEGEE

• 4.1 The delegee of a ccTLD is a trustee for the delegated domain, and has a duty to serve the residents of the relevant country or territory

The Constitution;

• 3.2 b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community
• "Australian Internet Community" means those users and suppliers of services via the Internet who are based in Australia

Fraud on the Minority (s232(e) CA)

 

[Scott.L]

"Conditions:

That the .au domain administrator:

• has a clearly defined membership structure that can represent the views of the Australian internet community"

Government Review

The Board did not act in the best interest of the company nor for a proper purpose. (s181 (1) b) CA)

 

[snoopy]

"Conditions:

That the .au domain administrator:

• has a clearly defined membership structure that can represent the views of the Australian internet community"

Government Review

The Board did not act in the best interest of the company nor for a proper purpose. (s181 (1) b) CA)

In my view the branch stacking is in direct conflict with the terms of the government review. I think the government has a very clear out here if they decide they'd rather set something up themselves.

The Review considers that more should be done to review and expand auDA’s membership base to ensure it better reflects Australia’s diverse and evolving internet community.

Recommendations:
11. That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.

auDA has not complied with recommendation 11.