Josh Rowe's public apology to auDA

[Cheyne]

Just got this email from the Chair of auDA, Mr. Chris. Leptos:

A former director of auDA – Mr Josh Rowe – has today published a full retraction and apology in the Australian Financial Review (page 9) regarding his recent comments.

Good people, with good intentions and driving passion, will inevitably disagree on some important matters when it comes to internet governance. However, Mr Rowe stepped over the line of civil debate that is at the heart of the multi-stakeholder model.

We accept his apology.

Our focus remains building auDA 2.0 with a robust membership model and governance arrangements that improve the reliability and integrity of the .au namespace. These reforms are both necessary and overdue to ensure that trust remains a hallmark of websites ending in “.au” and to protect the interests of the entire Australian Internet community.

Chris Leptos AM
Independent Chair
.au Domain Administration Ltd

It's great to see people being held accountable for their actions and it should be a clear warning to all that robust debate is perfectly acceptable but personal attacks, accusations with no proof, and outright lies are not. And I say that to all sides, by the way.

To take a quote from Josh himself, play the ball, not the man.

 

[Laurie Patton]

At the heart of the controversy surrounding auDA is the level of influence previously exercised by the so-called 'domainers' - people who buy and sell domain names, often extracting large windfall profits by hoarding unique names that subsequently command a premium. The communications department has highlighted the risk of 'capture' by vested interests as one of its key concerns about the current governance structure. The fundamental question here is should auDA operate on behalf of all the owners of domain names and the broader Internet user community, or is it merely there to represent the interests of a small inner circle?

 

[snoopy]

At the heart of the controversy surrounding auDA is the level of influence previously exercised by the so-called 'domainers' - people who buy and sell domain names, often extracting large windfall profits by hoarding unique names that subsequently command a premium. The communications department has highlighted the risk of 'capture' by vested interests as one of its key concerns about the current governance structure. The fundamental question here is should auDA operate on behalf of all the owners of domain names and the broader Internet user community, or is it merely there to represent the interests of a small inner circle?

"Supply side capture" has long been auDA's main problem, it has even been minuted by auDA's board. Given you are employed by a supply side entity to come on here and comment what you've said it not much of a surprise.

How much are you being paid again?

 

[Laurie Patton]

How much do you make each year from your involvement in the industry Snoopy?

 

[snoopy]

The board discussed a paper drafted by CN outlining possible changes to the auDA Constitution to address three issues:
1. potential supply side capture of demand class
2. supply related person standing as a demand class director
3. related entities holding multiple supply class memberships.

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2007/070416/

That is from 11 years ago yet it could have been written yesterday. We are still stuck in this position with supply side entities getting letters from auDA about the legitimacy of their membership and supply side people joining auDa in their hundreds.

 

[Laurie Patton]

Then let's all support the new governance model and move on! OK?

 

[snoopy]

How much do you make each year from your involvement in the industry Snoopy?

You are dodging again Laurie!

Let me know when you can answer the 2 questions I've been asking you for months.

• What is your role with Afilias/auDA
• How much are you being paid by them

 

[Laurie Patton]

Let's all support the new governance model and move on! OK?

 

[snoopy]

Then let's all support the new governance model and move on! OK?

It will still be broken because your employer, Afilias has signed up over 100 members. In fact it will be even more broken than the past.

 

[Laurie Patton]

So you are opposing the new model Snoopy? Then for the benefit of people who are new to this debate, what is your real name and what is your interest (vested) in the matter? Or would you prfeer that I reveal this?

 

[snoopy]

So you are opposing the new model Snoopy?

The actual government recommendations needs to by implemented. e.g. a 1 class membership model.

auDA are "on a tangent" on what the recommendations are. auDA want a two class model which has nothing much to do with the government review, it is about keeping their jobs for 3 years.

In my view there may well need to be another government review within 5 years if this can't be fixed properly. DoCA need to step up the the plate.

Then for the benefit of people who are new to this debate, what is your real name and what is your interest (vested) in the matter? Or would you prfeer that I reveal this?

Laurie, why do you keep asking my the same questions. Questions that you are well aware I've already answered?

https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/interesting-reading-from-adrian-kinderis.11989/page-2#post-93776

 

[Data Glasses]

what is your real name

.....Charlie Brown

 

[snoopy]

Let's be very clear on what the Government review states,

"Recommendation: 10. That auDA reforms its existing membership model by creating a single member class or a functional constituency model and that membership reform is non-discriminatory and supported with transparent membership guidelines."

https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/review-au-domain-administration

 

[Laurie Patton]

So, why don't you wait and see what the final version looks like before adopting an automatic default to disharmony?

 

[snoopy]

So, why don't you wait and see what the final version looks like before adopting an automatic default to disharmony?

You think they are going to propose a "single member class or a functional constituency model"?

auDA need to follow the government review.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Just got this email from the Chair of auDA, Mr. Chris. Leptos:

It's great to see people being held accountable for their actions and it should be a clear warning to all that robust debate is perfectly acceptable but personal attacks, accusations with no proof, and outright lies are not. And I say that to all sides, by the way.

To take a quote from Josh himself, play the ball, not the man.

It wasn't a personal attack.

Scumbags!

For you to try to claim the high moral ground is pathetic.

You support these scumbags and their branch stacking of the demand class membership right?

Including Ukainians, Filippinos, Chinese etc and significantly employees of supply side members.

Your commercial entity will financially benefit from the largesse distributed via auDA's proxy Afilias right?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

The irony is Josh's apology on the same page of the paper with an article about foreign interference in national infrastructure/assets.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Let's all support the new governance model and move on! OK?

#FridayFunnies

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So you are opposing the new model Snoopy? Then for the benefit of people who are new to this debate, what is your real name and what is your interest (vested) in the matter? Or would you prfeer that I reveal this?

Names don't matter here, arguments win through logic.

Like why does Snoopy's name matter to his opposition to the cabal in charge rail roading the members?

Don't you think threatening to out him is bullying behaviour?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I wonder who the new DoCA minister will be. Surely not another Victorian liberal.