2017 Board Elections

[snoopy]

Why have people moved to other extensions and why have some people just gone for Apps without the corresponding website and domain name all together?

Too much red tape and too many rip-offs.

How many individuals use a .com.au? They just go for .com, ditto for many micro businesses, and the big end of town as well.

.Com.au is being squeezed from both ends due to mismanagement by AUDA.

 

[findtim]

WOW, this threads moving fast and i have been actually working LOL
lets cut to the chase
yes cheyne: alluding seems to be the only way to go these days, i comes with asking a lot of trust from members that i am actually doing something, i suppose ian could jump in and say " yep, tim is doing something" and leave it at that?
stacking: ebranding covers that, its not that the membership model is broken, its that the membership model is not promoted, i'm not going to detail it here and now, i'll start another thread as its important especially now we have a CAC and a PRP.
we need to take membership out of the election thread, there are 2 issues here and there is very little talk about candidates and who they are !
for the record, i am a member,demand, and so is helena, i have no supply membership although i could, like cheyne mentioned if i wanted to i could have over 100 members tomorrow to get me voted on the board, funnily shane could have over 2000 !

board results for demand:
tim connell 52
simon johnson 66
shane moore 2013

 

[snoopy]

You could also move to a 3 year term which would mean 12 Board Directors
Unlucky 13 could be an independent Chairman.

I think the number of directors needs to be reduced, some are just $1000 a meeting seat warmers. Why pay for people who are just there because of mates or because of a captains call? (not a dig at you btw, talking about others/prior directors)

 

[Craig Marchant]

1. 3- 6 months timeframe to claim any proposed new competing .au extension is totally unacceptable.

Too long or too short? It would depend on auDA having a decent advertising campaign to make consumers aware. If there is no advertising campaign then the time frame may need to increase substantially.

2. Preferential rights for trade mark owners for the .au? Why?
- The allocation of domain names is not given to trademark holders now nor has it ever been.
- There are usually many conflicting trademark owners also for names.
- At no time does a trademark confer automatic ownership of any domain name in any extension globally.

As you said, opening up .au for direct registration presents a myriad of issues. At least when you have the .com or .net in the string you give some form of indication as to the sites basis. The potential for "bad actors" to mislead consumers is quite high.

Without knowing if there will be any eligibility rule changes, it becomes tricky to know if this will work or not. If those rules are significantly relaxed, then it could become quite a nightmare to manage. Although in saying that, have seen cases where people just wack in any old abn anyway to get a domain registered.

3. Preferential rights for government etc. Again why?
The allocation of domain names is not given to Government now nor has it ever been.

So the Australian Broadcasting Commission should get the ABC.AU name automatically first? Again why?

Why should the owner of defence.com.au lose the .au rights against Department of Defence? The Defence.com.au website is a well known platform on Defence news.

Pretty much same as above on this one as well. Defence.com.au at least dictates a non government controlled website by virtue of the .com string (IMHO). Removing the .com then starts to make it ambiguous.

As you pointed out, there is a lot to consider with the direct registration into .au

The basis I submitted my 2 bobs was on the fact direct registration into .au was going to happen, since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen.

 

[DomainNames]

Too long or too short? It would depend on auDA having a decent advertising campaign to make consumers aware. If there is no advertising campaign then the time frame may need to increase substantially.



As you said, opening up .au for direct registration presents a myriad of issues. At least when you have the .com or .net in the string you give some form of indication as to the sites basis. The potential for "bad actors" to mislead consumers is quite high.

Without knowing if there will be any eligibility rule changes, it becomes tricky to know if this will work or not. If those rules are significantly relaxed, then it could become quite a nightmare to manage. Although in saying that, have seen cases where people just wack in any old abn anyway to get a domain registered.



Pretty much same as above on this one as well. Defence.com.au at least dictates a non government controlled website by virtue of the .com string (IMHO). Removing the .com then starts to make it ambiguous.

As you pointed out, there is a lot to consider with the direct registration into .au

The basis I submitted my 2 bobs was on the fact direct registration into .au was going to happen, since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen.

Hi Craig, The process has been completely rigged and was flawed. The proposed competing extra .au extension is NOT certain of going ahead no matter how some are trying to play it that way.

Until proper consultation and surveying of every existing .au registrant is done, proper costing done what it will do to the .au namespace and business it must not proceed.

I have NO doubts auDA have left themselves open to a potential major Class Action Lawsuit by the way this has been handled to date. Damage has already been done and more damage may be done.

As the auDA CEO said, if they Board chooses to not go ahead with it it will not go ahead. As everyone knows the board has been stacked with people who potentially could have conflicts of interest and their own financial interests at play..

The government WILL review the processes which have been followed and the lack of consultation with all existing .au registrants.

I have been advised for the Class Action Lawsuit there is the potential for auDA Directors to be personally liable and the Directors insurance may not cover them. They should and would have been aware the processes followed have not been proper and that every .au registrant deserved the right to be contacted with proper information and proper disclosures ( including of any potential conflicts of interest of Board Members but they went ahead regardless..

This is just one of the reason's I dd not stand for the auDA Board.

If people think there is no risk for auDA and themselves as directors in a Class Action Lawsuit they are putting their heads in the sand... especially if the Directors insurance will not cover them...

2.6 million existing registrants do not even know about the proposed competing .au extension. They have rights as consumers to have been contacted and more properly informed and consulted. They will make one of Australia's largest Class Actions..... auDA may fold and then the Government will take it all over from auDA completely.

The ONLY way I think a director could be provided some form of consideration to not be part of the names parties is if they stood up against the proposed .au extension now, on the record, on all minutes and publicly. Why would anyone risk going down with the ship or risk personal litigation risk from the Class Action Lawsuit.

I have no doubts some very large companies with their existing .au domain name as key components of their business will back this litigation also.

It may not have happened in the uk or nz but trust me this is a real risk for auDA and the Directors for Australia where our .au namespace has had different rules, auDA auctions for .com.au names years ago and those people will all be affected etc.

 

[DomainNames]

Too long or too short? It would depend on auDA having a decent advertising campaign to make consumers aware. If there is no advertising campaign then the time frame may need to increase substantially.



As you said, opening up .au for direct registration presents a myriad of issues. At least when you have the .com or .net in the string you give some form of indication as to the sites basis. The potential for "bad actors" to mislead consumers is quite high.

Without knowing if there will be any eligibility rule changes, it becomes tricky to know if this will work or not. If those rules are significantly relaxed, then it could become quite a nightmare to manage. Although in saying that, have seen cases where people just wack in any old abn anyway to get a domain registered.



Pretty much same as above on this one as well. Defence.com.au at least dictates a non government controlled website by virtue of the .com string (IMHO). Removing the .com then starts to make it ambiguous.

As you pointed out, there is a lot to consider with the direct registration into .au

The basis I submitted my 2 bobs was on the fact direct registration into .au was going to happen, since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen.

"since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen"

Maybe you should have been involved earlier? Why not earlier?

 

[DomainNames]

Too long or too short? It would depend on auDA having a decent advertising campaign to make consumers aware. If there is no advertising campaign then the time frame may need to increase substantially.



As you said, opening up .au for direct registration presents a myriad of issues. At least when you have the .com or .net in the string you give some form of indication as to the sites basis. The potential for "bad actors" to mislead consumers is quite high.

Without knowing if there will be any eligibility rule changes, it becomes tricky to know if this will work or not. If those rules are significantly relaxed, then it could become quite a nightmare to manage. Although in saying that, have seen cases where people just wack in any old abn anyway to get a domain registered.



Pretty much same as above on this one as well. Defence.com.au at least dictates a non government controlled website by virtue of the .com string (IMHO). Removing the .com then starts to make it ambiguous.

As you pointed out, there is a lot to consider with the direct registration into .au

The basis I submitted my 2 bobs was on the fact direct registration into .au was going to happen, since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen.

Even though .Com.au was meant to be for "Commercial use" ( originally when setting up the extension the "Com" was shortened from "Commercial") ... Having the .com.au does not dictate it being non government..

Many Government departments and organisations also use the .com.au extension actually and other people had been left to use the .net.au.

This is also where the minefield or .au rights will be a disaster.

www.ABC.com.au goes to www.ABC.net.au via url forwarding

 

[DomainNames]

https://auda.org.au/mailouts/Members+Newsletter/auDA+Members'+Newsletter+—+November+2017

"Members Discussion Forum
In the lead-up to the 2017 AGM, auDA is testing a discussion forum platform which, if successful, will be implemented into the forthcoming member portal of the new auDA website.

All candidates and members are invited to participate in the pilot auDA Member Discussion Forum. To register, send an email to membership@auda.org.au with your name and class and we will send you a registration link.

To help inform member voting decisions, candidates are invited to post a candidate statement in the 2017 Board Elections category, with members able to ask candidates questions. Candidates are encouraged to respond.

Before registering for the forum, please familiarise yourself with the draft forum rules. Please note this is a real name forum and users are required to register their full name, but can use a screen username of their choosing."​

 

[DomainNames]

https://auda.org.au/mailouts/Members+Newsletter/auDA+Members'+Newsletter+—+November+2017

"Members Discussion Forum
In the lead-up to the 2017 AGM, auDA is testing a discussion forum platform which, if successful, will be implemented into the forthcoming member portal of the new auDA website.

All candidates and members are invited to participate in the pilot auDA Member Discussion Forum. To register, send an email to membership@auda.org.au with your name and class and we will send you a registration link.

To help inform member voting decisions, candidates are invited to post a candidate statement in the 2017 Board Elections category, with members able to ask candidates questions. Candidates are encouraged to respond.

Before registering for the forum, please familiarise yourself with the draft forum rules. Please note this is a real name forum and users are required to register their full name, but can use a screen username of their choosing."​

https://memberportal.auda.org.au/login

 

[Craig Marchant]

"since I was never involved with the initial debate on IF it should happen"

Maybe you should have been involved earlier? Why not earlier?

To be perfectly honest, I was too busy with my job at that point. CTO and CDO to 3 large companies already took in excess of 60 hours per week as it was, without adding anything else. And those estimates are conservative ones at that. Also a family of 5 kids doesn't require an insignificant investment in time as well.

And I also hold as similar view as Cheyne in not trying to double dip the system. Hence why I kept my mouth shut, and my head down. Besides, I was busy implementing all the changes and policies, etc that get generated by ICANN. I did often communicate with auDA when in meetings at the office or over email / phone. Especially in the early days, the last year or 2 it got rather quite however which I find rather sad.

Why now? Because I'm no longer involved with the companies, I made the decision to go do something different why my life. Still sorting out exactly what that is going to be, few ideas but nothing concrete just yet.

I was also asked to run by a few people, and so I can't run for a position without getting involved. While I've been sitting on the sidelines, I have been watching closely.

I do however appreciate all the conversation and communications going on right now. Quite happy to answer questions etc

Thanks for putting it out there.

Craig

P.S. Have also put a request in to register for the pilot auDA forums.

 

[Craig Marchant]

Even though .Com.au was meant to be for "Commercial use" ( originally when setting up the extension the "Com" was shortened from "Commercial") ... Having the .com.au does not dictate it being non government..

Many Government departments and organisations also use the .com.au extension actually and other people had been left to use the .net.au.

This is also where the minefield or .au rights will be a disaster.

www.ABC.com.au goes to www.ABC.net.au via url forwarding

Oh I know that, however in the mind of a general consumer who has limited understanding of domain names (i.e. a lot of customers) they generally associate .com for commercial as that's basically what they see advertised a lot of the time.

On that note actually, I've never actually seen a survey myself on what end customers associate .com or .net to mean, etc? Has anybody seen anything themselves at all? I did find something from ICANN about Awareness and Trust in Domain Name System, but it specifically targets gTLD domains and I would "assume" ccTLD's are slightly different.

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-06-23-en

 

[Craig Marchant]

I have NO doubts auDA have left themselves open to a potential major Class Action Lawsuit by the way this has been handled to date. Damage has already been done and more damage may be done.

It's actually an interesting observation, because I also wondered if we would see some form of litigation if it all goes pear shaped. There is a lot of potential for it to occur. But, in saying that my thoughts were around the Registry Transformation Project and were central to those thoughts.

 

[DomainNames]

To be perfectly honest, I was too busy with my job at that point. CTO and CDO to 3 large companies already took in excess of 60 hours per week as it was, without adding anything else. And those estimates are conservative ones at that. Also a family of 5 kids doesn't require an insignificant investment in time as well.

And I also hold as similar view as Cheyne in not trying to double dip the system. Hence why I kept my mouth shut, and my head down. Besides, I was busy implementing all the changes and policies, etc that get generated by ICANN. I did often communicate with auDA when in meetings at the office or over email / phone. Especially in the early days, the last year or 2 it got rather quite however which I find rather sad.

Why now? Because I'm no longer involved with the companies, I made the decision to go do something different why my life. Still sorting out exactly what that is going to be, few ideas but nothing concrete just yet.

I was also asked to run by a few people, and so I can't run for a position without getting involved. While I've been sitting on the sidelines, I have been watching closely.

I do however appreciate all the conversation and communications going on right now. Quite happy to answer questions etc

Thanks for putting it out there.

Craig

P.S. Have also put a request in to register for the pilot auDA forums.

"I was also asked to run by a few people, and so I can't run for a position without getting involved. While I've been sitting on the sidelines, I have been watching closely."

Who are the people who asked you to run?

Did Angelo or anyone at your old companies or related suggest you run? I had heard Angelo was going to run himself but then chose not to... Just interesting if you have been put forward by people, who those people are.. nothing wrong with it but always interesting to see the people and organisations behind candidates.

 

[Craig Marchant]

Did Angelo or anyone at your old companies or related suggest you run? I had heard Angelo was going to run himself but then chose not to... Just interesting if you have been put forward by people.. nothing wrong with it but always interesting to see the people and organisations behind candidates.

Nope, there was zero comments made on me running for auDA Board from VentraIP Australia, Synergy or Zuver - it was from others in the community.

Being completely transparent, I didn't even tell them I was doing it. I just did it before I headed off to the ICANN AGM.

 

[DomainNames]

Nope, there was zero comments made on me running for auDA Board from VentraIP Australia, Synergy or Zuver - it was from others in the community.

Being completely transparent, I didn't even tell them I was doing it. I just did it before I headed off to the ICANN AGM.

Great for being "completely transparent" so who asked you to run?

 

[Craig Marchant]

Phill Parker and John Nugent - Worked with both of them before during my time at Domain Directors / Instra Corporation. They nominated and seconded it.

Phill and I were discussing the state of .au a number of weeks ago and he said I should put my hand up and have a go. So here we are.

 

[findtim]

YOUR VOTE COUNTS
it really does, just look back to last year when shane and i were only 4 votes apart, historically it has been rare to have 3 candidates with such high numbers.( simon, me, shane)

with just 6 days to go those on the fence need to make a decision !

my vote will be for nicole and ned, WHY ? because what they stand for IMO is in the best interest of the organisation, stakeholders and ALL australian domain name owners and as director thats what you have to do.

it will be no surprise that i am supporting ned as i also said i would be supporting shane, nicole has now taken up that baton

i will acknowledge ian, his effort on the board has been very productive and possibly may in the future as i will of course congratulate the candidates that win , there is also craig who has been here on dnt and nigel who hasn't?

what i will say is we have a new chair now, long awaited ! , someone i think is on the side of transparency, yes you've heard it before but i am an optomist, and someone i think wants to help bring us all along the journey.

we still have a lot of work to do, i can tell you this isn't a breeze, its a love job where there is virtually no reward.

so we need to support our new chair and for that to happen we need people on the board with deep knowledge of the industry in many facets who are willing to be open to change with good reason as well as insist on that change reasoning being expressed to all who that affects.

i think nicole and ned are those candidates

so the choice is yours, i've made my decision i hope you do the same.

findtim

 

[Cheyne]

I'm still waiting on a response from Nicole regarding the questions I asked.

 

[Nicole Murdoch]

I'm still waiting on a response from Nicole regarding the questions I asked.

Cheyne, you and I both know that no one can give guarantees as to the outcome of discussions of a group. What I do guarantee is that I will listen to stakeholders and take into consideration their views, even if we disagree. I will take those views to the Board. I know that my opinion may differ from others and I am happy to listen to the viewpoints of others.

I will honour my confidentiality obligations but that does not mean I am a marionette or I will "do as I am told".

If we change nothing then nothing will change.

 

[Cheyne]

Perfect, and thank you.