auDA tries to defend model as "Single Class"

[snoopy]

The defence has started with just about their first breath.

The net result is a single membership open to any applicant who has a demonstrable link to Australia. To ensure stability as we adopt the new model, there is a three year transitional arrangement that features “governing” and “associate” members. The above linked document explains this in detail.

https://www.auda.org.au/mailouts/auDA+Plain+Announce/Proposed+Membership+and+Governance+Model

Sorry auDA but blind freddy knows that a model with two classes of membership cannot be "single class". I don't see how this can be in alignment with the Government Review personally.

 

[Scott.L]

According to this model -

Supply class becomes the Nominations committee (small group of Members of the company with rights) and the Demand Class (the 15,000 majority) are non-members of the company with limited rights.

The nominations committee (the Governing members of the company with rights) are appointed by the BOARD and the Board appoints the Nominations Committee? OMG - its the same circumstance as the current Board applicant issue that stacked the membership, consequently stacked the Board, bringing with it Government intervention.

This Nominations Committee (currently proposed) is going to be the AXIS of EVIL upon which turns the bribe chain, there is NO mechanism for accountability for 14,999 people who may disagree with the nature of the Boards attitude or direction of the company. (except a complaint escalation process dealt with by the very "Nominations Committee" with which the complaint will be directed against)

What ever happened to "equity of outcome", this proposed membership model does not "represents the synthesised views " of stakeholders.

in fact, after reading it again - it does not say how many people are on the Nominations Committee?

 

[Scott.L]

in fact, after reading it again - it does not say how many people are on the Nominations Committee?

woops ? Meant, it does not say how people are appointed onto the Nominations Committee;

as per: Initially comprising the auDA Board chair (as chair of the Committee) and one representative from each of industry, the business sector, consumers, auDA members and government.

 

[snoopy]

The nominations committee (the Governing members of the company with rights) are appointed by the BOARD and the Board appoints the Nominations Committee? OMG - its the same circumstance as the current Board applicant issue that stacked the membership, consequently stacked the Board, bringing with it Government intervention.

This Nominations Committee (currently proposed) is going to be the AXIS of EVIL upon which turns the bribe chain, there is NO mechanism for accountability for 14,999 people who may disagree with the nature of the Boards attitude or direction of the company. (except a complaint escalation process dealt with by the very "Nominations Committee" with which the complaint will be directed against)

The nominations committee will clearly be the target of stackers and the nominations committee/board relationship is likely to become very circular.

I don't see how it is likely to lead to a good outcome if the board controls the nominations committee and the nominations committee control the board.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

The only way to prevent this is to have a circuit breaker provided by members... like we do now.

 

[DomainNames]

This has been "Rigged" by auDA Management and some paid PR people it seems in the background..

It is NOT the CWMG's model it is the model from auDA they wanted the CMWG to "Sell" at the last minute.

How can they say it is a Single Model?

The CMWG where told by auDA and it seems to be written it is NOT single class at all but 2 classes... They then have lied it seems to try abd give the appearance it is 2 class.. Evidence would probably show it is not..

Out of accountability and transparency. This information needs to be make public bu the CMWG.. You bet auDA will try and block them from doing this!

1. Who from thw CMWG voted to put the auDA Managements model forward to members?
   
2. Who from the CMWG voted to NOT put the auDA Managements model forward to members?
   
3. Who abstained?

https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/review-australias-au-domain-management

Review of Australia’s .au domain management – Discussion paper Published 16th Nov 2017

Download PDF(393.02 KB)

Download DOC(850.27 KB)

"The review’s key finding is that the current management framework is no longer fit-for-purpose.


The report recommends reforming auDA’s management framework to support improved transparency, stakeholder engagement, consultation and accountability."

The problem is clearly the management and they will spend $millions to try and take people off track from the Government report's real findings!​

 

[DomainNames]

It has been 100% orchestrated and rigged. The DoCA needs to do a full audit and investigation including emails, calls, meetings etc. This is one of their powers under the new Terms Of Reference and Report.

 

[Scott.L]

Nominations Committee:

auDA Board chair (as chair of the Committee) WTF!
One representative from each of industry (what does that mean? supply/demand)

1. Supply (one rep)
2. Demand (a domainer?)
3. Business sector
4. consumers?
5. auDA members?
6. government.

Essentially, each of those parties can be filled by supply related entities.

Employees of a Registry Operator, Registrar, Reseller could be eligible to fill the ‘Consumer(s)' or can fill the position of the auDA Demand Class Member(s), they could also fill each role of an Industry Representative. (does the new con have any clause prohibiting it)

• How many 'consumers' and 'auDA members' are on this Nominations committee – they have used the plural (s) (consumers and auDA members)
• what does the word 'consumers' actually mean, au registrant or a hyper educated Bunnings consumer?
• What does the word auDA Members actually mean – demand/supply or are they auDA members of the nominations committee Governing members (insane) or Associate Members (insane) - Who are these auDA members?

It’s a constituency model disguised as the Alternative Membership Model with a duel membership inserted. Composed of only 6-7 actual members of the company that control the entire show. A 1,000 supply related proxy votes in one persons hand can simply put their own candidates forward to the board, they can easily control the NomCon and when under their spell - whats stopping the 7 governing members (NomCom) changing the constitution (within 3 years) despite what associate members would want, or worse, independent directors (the majority) control the Board, ignoring the views of the elected directors. (perhaps it should include 24.1 whereby an elected director must be present to form a quorum - nah, they''ll ignore that clause just as it is done today) in reality, the constitution will simply be ignored or adhered to according to whoever needs to retain their power/win, just as it is done today. (203D)

The Committee will consult with the Board and will appoint or approve Directors in accordance with a Board Skills Matrix, developed by the Committee in consultation with the Board.

On the surface, its a closed feedback loop (echo-chamber) that will eventually self corrupt. I think we all need to see the accompanied constitution to this model. I wonder when will that be known, 7 days prior to the GM?

 

[Scott.L]

as per the government review;


Did anyone bother to question the merit of this loop - ‘the structuring of selection processes’ by the NomCon using a Skills matrix should not be a Box-ticking exercise by nomination committee. Who investigates behavioral processes within the nomination committee, ensuring the committee has/is maintaining objectivity (is not captured by vested interest groups). What element of accountability beyond/outside itself does this NomCon answer to? if its the Government then what criteria/ structure does it have to ensure the integrity of the NomCon is maintained?

IMHO, The Chair and CEO should not be part of the NomCon, nor any other Board member(s)

 

[snoopy]

IMHO, The Chair and CEO should not be part of the NomCon, nor any other Board member(s)

Agree. The problem is that the "auDA representative" is very likely to hold sway in the group. The "auDA member representative" doesn't sound great either as it has the potential to just be someone who is friendly with the board. The nomination committee should be genuinely independent of auDA.

 

[Scott.L]

Agree. The problem is that the "auDA representative" is very likely to hold sway in the group. The "auDA member representative" doesn't sound great either as it has the potential to just be someone who is friendly with the board. The nomination committee should be genuinely independent of auDA.

The Review does note

The Review finds that Board appointments should be endorsed by a Nomination Committee, which includes representatives that are independent of auDA to help avoid the potential for manipulation and ensure optimal transparency in the appointment process

How does DOCA expect auDA to - ensure optimal transparency - is conducted in the appointment process (its all done behind closed doors)
The "Chair' of auDA may become "interdependent" on the NomCom for Board appointments. IMHO, the Chair should be "independent" of the NomCom. Also, the auDA proposed member model (NomCom) does not mention that the CEO is on the NomCom, the CEO could be the auDA Representative.

 

[DomainNames]

is auDA, DOCA or the CMWG taking on board this stuff or ignoring stakeholder consulation and input?

 

[Scott.L]

The CMWG has constructed a type of Functional Constituency model (rejected by all) for a period of 3 years or if when 15,000 members are reached. The proposed model consists of only 7 members (with voting rights) and everyone else with none (except to elect a director) those 7 members are to be the NomCom, they approve the nominated Elected Directors to stand for election (regardless of whom the Associate members would want) voting to elect people nobody really knows - except on a linkedin profile or other

it does not appear that This CMWG model put to members resemble their Member Option review paper sent to the board on the July 20 - members do not have a choice to be "Members" they are forced to be "Associate Members". And, if Associate members are to have equality of vote, they are forced to either wait 3 years [unless constitution is altered by the NomCom to stop it] OR Associate members are forced to increase auDA membership "rapidly" (why would auDA be motivated to increase its membership, pesky members)


Member Option review
To summarise, after extensive consultation, the CMWG now believes the membership model auDA’s board proposes should contain the following elements:
● A single member class
● The capacity to broaden membership and limit the risk of vested interest capture
● An option for non-registrants to join
● The establishment of membership committees or alternate member contribution options to support the board and management of auDA, including ongoing advisory committees with specific portfolios to meet industry needs. It is envisioned this will encourage the contributions of large organisations and/or corporations, as well as foreign entities, to aid auDA’s mission.
● A mechanism to ensure all members have a connection to Australia. We recommend that the eligibility requirements for registration of a .au domain should serve as a starting template.
● Include an affiliate (non-voting) membership option to promote a diversity of contributions and perspectives on relevant committees. Precedent for this model of membership exists within ICANN and InternetNZ, for example. (NZ offer CHOICES)
● Ensure protection of .au as an Australian asset
● Simplicity

 

[DomainNames]

Option 1 Sack them all and put in new Fit For Purpose qualified Management
Option 2 Go to an EOI
Option 3 Transfer it to DoCA https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/internet-governance/domain-names

 

[Scott.L]

I really don't know why it was changed?
it perfectly reflected the intent of having Supply class membership "inclusive" of companies and their personnel.
I guess they wanted to "Modernize it" and ...


Reference here:

 

[Scott.L]

This is the moment when auDA was captured by Supply Class - 2003
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/agm/2002/egm/



This is the moment when it was stolen from the people - 2018
https://www.auda.org.au/news/new-auda-members/
https://www.auda.org.au/assets/auDA-Proposed-membership-and-governance-model.pdf

 

[Scott.L]

This is the moment when auDA was captured by Supply Class - 2003
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/agm/2002/egm/

Monday 23 September 2002, 10.00am
12 proxies were received: 2 supply, 3 representative association, 7 demand

Unbelievable!

(probably all board proxies)

 

[findtim]

you have to register:

Date Time: Aug 29, 2018 4:00 PM Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join. https://zoom.us/w/976727340?tk=b-ENGfqE3p5i0p54I1pn-hX88NdXNx_R5DLRcVHfZ_I.DQEAAAAAOjetLBY3SUdIdVJkaVRPS1VhU19YYTdVWXNnAA
Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you.
Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar
Description: A live Q&A with the auDA Board, barrister Tony Lang and representatives from Ashurst on the proposed membership model.

Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,976727340# or +19294362866,,976727340#

Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 929 436 2866
Australia: +61 (0) 2 8015 2088 or +61 (0) 8 7150 1149
Webinar ID: 976 727 340
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/tyXAaCjf

 

[Scott.L]

"auDA Membership Model Q&A".

I was puzzled by the fact that the majority of questions came from Members of the CWMG?

This model, developed by auDA, reflects the input and views of the CMWG along with the board’s careful consultation with many other parties including the internet community, the domain industry and international peers

reference here:

if auDA developed the model - why did the CWMG have so many "targeted" questions, as if, this was the first time they've seen it?

auDA welcomed the Federal Government’s review and has spent the past months, in consultation with the CMWG and with legal advice from Ashurst, developing a new membership and governance model that will not only meet government’s demands but also satisfy the expectations of existing members

reference here:

If the CMWG spent months in consultation with auDA, why were members of the CWMG asking the CEO (Chair of the CMWG) basic questions that would have been "normally asked" when scrutinizing a proposed membership Model?

Why were (7) Members of the CWMG asking questions about the proposed membership model via this forum?

WTF is going on?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Psst.... it's another sham for appearances sake.