2017 Board Elections

[snoopy]

What concerns me about the current panel is that Ned even needed to state that the merits need to be addressed. And that needed to be confirmed by Andrew Christie. I know Mr Swinson was not on the names panel but surely he is fully briefed.

Should also be noted that AUDA is attempting to dissuade people from talking about the merits of the proposal in their submission.

Post from whirlpool.net.au,



They have even changed their auto response email in the last week basically suggesting people to rewrite what they call "generic" responses,

Thank you for your submission. If you have made a generic submission. The Panel requests that you consider the issues and options raised in the issues paper when responding to the questions. The Panel is interested in the impact on stakeholders’ businesses and service delivery and consumers and the public if any of the options outlined in the issues paper are implemented. This is your chance to tell the Panel your preferred option.

The prior auto response email had no such text. I know of this change because I altered my response and resubmitted a week later.

 

[DomainNames]

Great story on www.domainer.com.au to refresh the minds of many.... auDA current Board , auDA CEO Cameron Boardman , and inform some new Board Candidates, committees, panels, consultants, Ministers, Class Action Law Firms etc.

http://www.domainer.com.au/setting-the-record-straight/#comment-4478

https://www.arnnet.com.au/article/5...ern-over-proposed-domain-name-system-changes/
" For immediate release 27 November, 2015
ACCAN voices concern over proposed changes to domain name system

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) has written to the .au Domain Administration (auDA) Board to voice concerns over the proposed changes to the Australian domain name system. The auDA Names Policy Panel is proposing to introduce a .au environment without the need for .com, .net, .edu and so on. The proposed change will allow for domain names like “www.accan.au” to be registered.

Australia’s current domain name system is highly regarded and has strong public recognition. The proposed changes could have adverse effects on small businesses that rely on their website and domain name to attract business if other parties register and use similar domain names. It could also result in additional expenses incurred by small businesses that have to defensively register additional domain names to protect their businesses. The changes may be confusing to consumers as recognised domain names of businesses and organisations could change. ACCAN has previously voiced these concerns in two separate submissions in June and September.

“ACCAN has consulted with a number of small businesses who have expressed concern over the proposed changes to Australian domain names,” said ACCAN CEO, Teresa Corbin. “There is a strong likelihood that small businesses will incur extra costs due to defensive registrations, not to mention the extra time and effort they’ll need to spend ensuring their domain name and business are protected.

“We are concerned that to date feedback on the changes has largely been from the domain name industry and the consultation has not adequately taken into account other perspectives such as those of small businesses. A lot of small businesses may not even be aware of the proposed changes,” said Ms Corbin.

There’s also the question of who gets priority access to the new .au domain names that have already been registered as .com.au, .org.au and so on. In the United Kingdom, .com domain name holders were given priority over other parties to purchase the new .uk domain names. If this approach is adopted in Australia it would be unfair to many small businesses.

“These issues need to be worked through before any change is made so that fair arrangements can be put in place that don’t disadvantage small businesses,” said Ms Corbin.

For more information, contact Luke Sutton on luke.sutton@accan.org.au or 0409 966 931. For the latest updates, follow ACCAN on Twitter or like us on Facebook.

MEDIA CONTACT
Luke Sutton
Mobile: 0409 966 931 luke.sutton@accan.org.au Phone: 02 9288 4017

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) is Australia’s peak communications consumer organisation. The operation of ACCAN is made possible by funding provided by the Commonwealth of Australia under section 593 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. This funding is recovered from charges on telecommunications carriers."

 

[neddy]

Good to see @Nicole Murdoch presenting today at Cyber in Business Conference in Melbourne.

Disappointing that no one from auDA is on the list of speakers (this was Rachel Falk's are of expertise - but she's gone).

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

Thanks Ned. I am looking forward to the presentation. We are presenting on insider threats and the legal steps you can take against them when they steal data. Unfortunately my co-presenter - from the Fraud and Cyber crime squad - and I have some horrid war stories. Money going missing, confidential data being sold on the dark web, identity theft, people creating credentials to gain access to networks ... You get the picture.

I like the idea of auDA presenting on the infrastructure protections for the .au space. It would show they play a proactive role in security - which is always good to see.

 

[DomainNames]

Good to see @Nicole Murdoch presenting today at Cyber in Business Conference in Melbourne.

Disappointing that no one from auDA is on the list of speakers (this was Rachel Falk's are of expertise - but she's gone).

auDA does have experienced people still and information about their activities in this space.

ttps://www.google.com.au/search?safe=active&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&ei=kirxWe7GNMiq0gTwqZTQCA&q=auda+cybersecurity&oq=auda+cybersecurity&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3650.5588.0.5724.9.8.0.0.0.0.429.429.4-1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..8.1.427...33i160k1.0.rI99-gkyUK4

https://www.auda.org.au/news/audas-submission-to-the-australian-governments-cybersecurity-review/
https://www.auda.org.au/blog/happy-new-year-from-the-ceo-at-auda/
Although it is of course beneficial for auDA to have involvement in Cybersecurity they have other work to do on the .au domain namespace management issues which is why they exist.

auDA CEO Cameron Boardman would be very qualified to talk but perhaps he was busy. These type of meetings are not rare around Australia, there will be many others.

 

[Lemon]

Ned, why did the Supply members support the www.Grumpy.com.au campaign / SGM. Maybe refresh some memories now it is time for the election and candidates to show what they have done and will do differently.

Yes let us refresh our memories.

 

[Lemon]

No response?

Well I would like to take this opportunity to refresh some memories of how I was involved.

I spent many months campaigning against the code of conduct, removal of the minutes and lack of communication and transparency in the organisation. You can look at my past comments and the threads I started voicing my concerns.

I contributed, in no small part, to the grumpy campaign, I am sure Ned will verify this.
I was one of the four signatures on the S249D which called for the SGM. As one of the organisers I am also aware of who else signed the petition.
I wrote to the Board on several occasions calling for change.
I was present at the SGM, asked questions of the Board and made my voice heard as a Member.
I contributed to the crowd funding for the FOI request for the minutes to be released.
I was not going to let all my efforts and those of the members go to waste and put myself forward for the casual vacancy.

My views have not changed and I believe in the core principles and objectives of auDA on which it was founded.

Perhaps the other candidates can tell the Members what they have done and why they deserve your vote.

 

[snoopy]

Perhaps the other candidates can tell the Members what they have done and why they deserve your vote.

You forgot the bit about double crossing Shane.

 

[Lemon]

You forgot the bit about double crossing Shane.

I didn't double cross Shane. I never voted for him at the last election, why would I?
There was more than one applicant for the casual vacancy and I was not going to sacrifice all the effort of the SGM on the chance that Shane would get the position. Are you saying I am not suitable?

 

[neddy]

I have chosen purposely not to engage with Ian (Lemon). To say I feel let down by him over Shane would be an understatement. My earlier post on this same thread explains why.

At the SGM, I also offered to stand aside for anyone that wanted to run for Director alongside Shane. I extended this to Luke, Rob and Ian (Lemon). All declined. So I continued on for a while - then stood aside for Nicole. I only offered myself up again after Shane got gazumped with the "casual vacancy", and he decided not to run for personal and business reasons.

That said, I must (and do) genuinely acknowledge Lemon's efforts in the initial "Grumpy" campaign. He was a terrific ally and mastermind - as were Scott Long and Josh Rowe. After a nervous start, Lemon also performed admirably at the SGM. We were a team.

So Nicole and I look forward to the election contest. As I said in the initial thread, Ian Halson (Lemon) is a smart and well credentialed person. He will attract some votes - no doubt about that. Our substantial point of difference is our stance on direct registrations. If Ian (Lemon) should beat either of us (and he does so fairly and squarely), then I will be amongst the first to congratulate him.

Ned

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Now that we know he is pro direct registrations, no doubt he will attract the supply side employees and friends vote.

 

[Lemon]

Now that we know he is pro direct registrations, no doubt he will attract the supply side employees and friends vote.

Who said I was pro direct registrations.

Personally I would have preferred direct registrations not to have come in.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

...The continued debate has created uncertainty in the marketplace, what is needed is stability so we can all move forward.

The debate now needs to revolve around implementation.

You did.

 

[snoopy]

Lemon you have stated you are in favour of .au.

Also the debate has not moved to implementation, AUDA just hopes people will be quiet on the "merits of the proposal" issue because they want to try and push it through without properly consulting the public in the same way Nominet did. All registrants need to be informed.

The Policy Review Panel is currently still looking at direct registrations and AUDA is facing a government review, a dark cloud hangs over this proposal and many people want it scrapped. When AUDA insiders tell us something is definitely coming that means little other than that they personally are in favour of it. The removal of minutes and the code of conduct were done deals 6 months ago.

I think the majority of ordinary domain name owners/average person on the street is not in favour and this issue has a long way to travel in the court of public opinion.

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

Our substantial point of difference is our stance on direct registrations.
Ned

and our transparent method of operation.
The current auDA board is being criticised for its lack of transparency. I don't know Ian and I don't know what he promised Shane. But where was Ian's transparency when he was being considered by auDA? It feels like auDA just appointed someone who would toe the party line.

 

[Shane]

I don't know Ian and I don't know what he promised Shane.

He didn't promise me anything, but he did give Ned his word that he wouldn't be applying. Quite clearly his word means very little...

The whole process was poor in my opinion. Timelines constantly changed, and different directors gave me different versions of how it all unfolded.

From what I can gather, Ian was more palatable to the supply class directors, and therefore he got the nod. Why on earth are supply class directors voting on a demand class position though...? Yet another way that things are stacked against us.

We need strong, honest and transparent directors on the auDA board more now than ever. Ned and Nicole are the right options. We can't give our votes to yet another director who is happy to ruin personal relationships for their own personal gain.

 

[Lemon]

The current auDA board is being criticised for its lack of transparency. I don't know Ian and I don't know what he promised Shane

I did not promise Shane anything. I have never spoken to him or exchanged emails.

But where was Ian's transparency when he was being considered by auDA?

I was very transparent in my application to the auDA Board. I am sure they were aware of my views considering I was at the SGM and sent several letters to the board expressing my concerns. Perhaps you can enlighten us all on your involvement.

For those who question my transparency here is an extract from my application to the Board for the casual vacancy.

I am an auDA member because it is necessary to have a voice in such an important organisation that has an impact on Australian businesses and the wider community. I added my support to the recent S249D motion because I, personally believed that auDA was moving too far away from it’s core values without consulting it’s membership base.

As a Director I would endeavour to bring the organisation up to date. There need to be changes made to an outdated Constitution, including a Code of Conduct, auDA policies and a review of the membership base and structure. The members portal would be an important tool for auDA and the Board to engage and build trust with members, both in supply and demand.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

...From what I can gather, Ian was more palatable to the supply class directors, and therefore he got the nod. Why on earth are supply class directors voting on a demand class position though...? Yet another way that things are stacked against us.

Just another failure of current demand directors to stand up and represent the demand side. Absolutely pathetic effort.

This is how the supply side has stacked influence on the board!

NFI

 

[Lemon]

he did give Ned his word that he wouldn't be applying.

NOT TRUE

We can't give our votes to yet another director who is happy to ruin personal relationships for their own personal gain.

NOT TRUE
Perhaps you should read the Summary of Director's Duties. I take my responsibilities very seriously.
https://auda.org.au/pdf/board-directors-duties.pdf

Ned and Nicole are the right options

Even if I was not standing for election I would not give my vote to Nicole.
How long has Nicole been a member? You would hope a long time for someone that is putting their hand up to represent Demand Class Members some of whom have been members since the foundation of auDA and many who have been involved in the industry for eons.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

I think Nicole has a better pedigree than you.

https://www.domainer.com.au/nicole-murdoch-for-auda-director/