auDA CMWG - I've applied to join

[snoopy]

(Sent today to auDA CMWG, CEO and Chair)

Dear CMWG,

Firstly may I say that I appreciate the work that the group is doing to reform auDA. I fully support and endorse that important work.
I feel I represent a large percentage of the membership base that is currently underrepresented on the working group, in particular small business owners and domain name investors.

Given the above plus the criticism in the last seven days by both the CMWG Chair (in the media) & the auDA Chair (at the SGM), I would like to put my name forward to be a member of the CMWG,

“We found ourselves in this perpetual cycle of very disappointingly around some of these people, the more we tried outreach and get them involved in what should have been a constructive, consultative process they didn’t want to be involved in there. It was a little bit hypocritical,” Broadman said.

“If you want to have a direct say in the future of an organisation, then you have to have a willingness to participate.”

https://mumbrella.com.au/embattled-australian-domain-authority-ceo-labels-critics-hypocrites-531289

I am willing to participate and I support the CMWG’s reform objectives. I wish to start immediately. I also welcome any CMWG member who has concerns about about me joining the CMWG to contact me directly via phone or email.

Best regards,

Paul Shaw

 

[Rhythm]

I feel I represent a large percentage of the membership base that is currently underrepresented on the working group, in particular small business owners and domain name investors

What a joke.

You have a history of denigrating, disparaging, belittling .com.au domain names since joining this forum.

 

[Jimboot]

I hope to attend next week in person or online and I have been discussing the work with some of the members privately recently. They have some interesting challenges. There is a lot of good work there. I've travelled the country this year urging people to join auDA and I think the more input the CMWG can get from members the better. The Govt reforms address a lot of the issues that concerned me. The membership model is integral to that so I'd like to find out more.

 

[Scott.L]

(sent an email today to the CMWG, Chair & CEO to participate with the work group.)

Dear CMWG,

I must say, the evolution of the CMWG from its original Terms of Reference to what it has become today, enlivened my interest to partake in the CMWG decision-making process.

I appreciate the work that the group is doing in bringing about positive reform outcomes for auDA, consistent with the Australian Government recommendations proffered by the Dept. of Communications.

In light of Mr Shaw’s show of support to be on the CMWG, I share the same opinion, I also fully support and endorse the important work undertaken by the CMWG.

I would like to put my name forward to be a member, and I also welcome any CMWG member who has concerns about me joining the CMWG to contact me directly via phone or email.

Best regards,
Scott Long

 

[Data Glasses]

Finally some support for .net.au on board

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I really find it strange that the moving goal posts that the terms of reference have become, has not been an issue for the CMWG members.

Is it just another political manoeuvre?..... announce a boring (non issue) working group that won't attract attention from members, stack it with mates, change the terms of reference and then criticise members for not getting involved?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Wow, Sandra gets up and says nothing of note.

 

[DomainNames]

Who made the "hoarder" comments in person at the meeting? Interesting to see who they are and why.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

It was, I believe, auDA board member, James Deck.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I believe there should be a separation of roles.

I don't believe it is appropriate for board members to attend and influence the outcome of essentially a member session.

Especially when board members peddle their misguided understanding of legal ownership of multiple domains by calling people "hoarders" for example.

 

[jdeck]

Hi all,

James Deck here. I have been alerted to the above posts.

I was not the person that used the term “hoarders” at yesterday’s forum. I don’t condone the term and have no issue with participants in the secondary market. Domainers are an important part of the .au ecosystem.

Directors have only participated in the CMWG process to the extent that we have been requested/invited by the group. I agree that the group’s independence needs to be respected and that the process requires absolute integrity.

The CMWG is doing a great job and I applaud them for their tireless, hard work.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Thanks for the clarification James and my apologies for incorrectly indicating it might have been you.

 

[jdeck]

Thanks for the clarification James and my apologies for incorrectly indicating it might have been you.

Thanks. No harm done. Although I’ve called Australia home for almost as long as I lived in Canada, my accent is pretty distinct and there were more than a couple of us reformed North Americans present last night. I can see where the confusion occurred!

 

[Bacon Farmer]

James, are you concerned at all that there is now a majority of foreign members?

 

[Peter T]

Hi, just my 2c. I was sitting next to James, for some of the event, and can corroborate that James wasn't the one that used the word 'hoarder'.

In terms of directors being at yesterday's event, the CMWG had no objections to inviting directors - it was a public meeting, and James is also an auDA Member.

In terms of directors being at the meeting - send me your brickbats. I wanted the board to see for themselves, James included, that members were constructively working together, and that the facilitators were making a different.

James repeatedly, both before and after the event, wanted to ensure that these events, and the CMWG, are completely independent from influence from the board.

I sincerely hope that you're not mistaking James' input from his experience in the industry, with Board interference.

 

[DomainNames]

"Hi all,

James Deck here. I have been alerted to the above posts.

I was not the person that used the term “hoarders” at yesterday’s forum. I don’t condone the term and have no issue with participants in the secondary market. Domainers are an important part of the .au ecosystem."



Thanks James for the clarification. Who made the comments do you know? It appears they are sheepish to stand up for what they said and used the important forum to try and gain some support for their lack of obvious real domain namespace knowledge...

 

[DomainNames]

Hi, just my 2c. I was sitting next to James, for some of the event, and can corroborate that James wasn't the one that used the word 'hoarder'.
.

Hi Peter who used the term Hoarder ... an obvious attempt to attack domain name investors and damage the .au namespace at the meeting..

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Hi, just my 2c. I was sitting next to James, for some of the event, and can corroborate that James wasn't the one that used the word 'hoarder'.

In terms of directors being at yesterday's event, the CMWG had no objections to inviting directors - it was a public meeting, and James is also an auDA Member.

In terms of directors being at the meeting - send me your brickbats. I wanted the board to see for themselves, James included, that members were constructively working together, and that the facilitators were making a different.

James repeatedly, both before and after the event, wanted to ensure that these events, and the CMWG, are completely independent from influence from the board.

I sincerely hope that you're not mistaking James' input from his experience in the industry, with Board interference.

Given every other person who held the microphone at the meeting was asked to identify themselves and you were at the meeting, and it was recorded, then it's strange the identity of this person who was clearly anti domainer can't be worked out.

You're against the domain monetisation rule (which seems to be up for discussion again) aren't you? And if you are, one might call you anti domainer right?

The CMWG has no objections to board members attending? Peter, do you speak for the entire CMWG? Are you sure all CMWG members had no objections? Did you ask them? Sean, were you happy for the directors to attend?

Sorry but just because a Director is a Member does not mean it's appropriate for them to be involved in the meeting. It clearly isn't.

Let's be very clear, Director input at the meeting is interference.

Directors being called upon to speak and give their interpretation of issues.... is influence and therefore interference.

Directors sitting at a table discussing group questions with other participants is influence and therefore interference.

The fact you organised it and are defending it is a serious issue.

Wanting to please the board is an issue, they clearly had no problem seeing the results from the first one. You should be wanting to please the members.

Are you concerned that the terms of reference for the CMWG have changed?

Are you concerned that the majority of members who will vote on the new membership model are foreign employees of supply side members? (it'd be good to hear your opinion)

Ok enough brick bats, here's a bouquet, thanks for coming on here and answering our questions.

 

[DomainNames]

I hear Chris Leptos took it upon himself to knock back every application today at the CMWG / auDA Board meeting...

Chris Leptos seems to have it in for Josh Rowe still with another apparent smear tirade attempt about Josh....and possible unusual comments about the people who applied to join the CMWG.

• Why not accept new CMWG applications?
• Why now say it is too late and its nearly over and it will be too hard to bring new people up to speed
• When does the CMWG finish?

Is auDA Board, Chair and CEO / Management now running the auDA CMWG? Why would the Chair of auDA comment about CMWG applications and want to knock them back?

The SGM vote was Majority to Remove Chris Leptos.. ...

Chris Leptos should take the hint and resign with some dignity not spout his continued personal attacks in meetings to the auDA Board and auDA CMWG without Josh Rowe being able to give his side of things...

• https://www.itwire.com/strategy/82986-auda-directors-vote-to-give-themselves-pay-rises.html
  
• https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/83810-auda-voting-system-is-skewed-to-favour-management.html

"It reminds one of the old saw from that famous book Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Resolutions voted on under this kind of skewed system will never reflect the will of the majority on a given day.

It is time that auDA, which was found by a government review in April to be functioning in a way that is not fit for purpose, changes this system if it wants to have at least a little credibility."
​

www.Grumpier.com.au

It may be time for every auDA meeting is recorded and live streamed to the public so people know the shambles and tactics at play behind the scenes.

 

[Peter T]

Hi Peter who used the term Hoarder ... an obvious attempt to attack domain name investors and damage the .au namespace at the meeting..

Sean: I'm not even 100% sure of who it was, and if it was who I think it was, I don't know their name - they were sitting on the periphery, and I'm not sure they announced their name - we've already had one person (James Deck) wrongly named, I'm not going to perpetuate this by wrongly naming others.