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.
In a way, do you really blame them for not wanting to identify themselves? There appears to be a lynch mob baying for their blood.
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?
Huh? Am I against domain monetisation? Is it up for discussion again? anti-domainer? So sorry to disappoint you, I'm none of the above.
Even if I was anti-domainer, which I'm not, I have the integrity to separate my own beliefs, objectives, aspirations and expectations regarding the organisation, from those who I'm representing.
What you've written feels like a thinly veiled attempt to attack my integrity?
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?
No, I don't speak for the entire CMWG. The CMWG works by consensus; we'll all agree to certain things, we'll also disagree to certain things - that comes with the territory of having such a diverse group of people - it's great that we don't suffer from groupthink.
Am I sure that no CMWG members had no objections? I'm quite sure that none voiced their objection.
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.
Really serious? Or a little serious?
If directors didn't attend, then the complaint would be that directors don't care about the issue, and don't believe that the issue is worth spending their time on. After all, earlier in this thread you called the CMWG a
a boring (non issue) working group
If it's a "non issue working group", does it really matter who attends? If it's a "non issue working group", then, surely it's not a serious issue as you say.
If it is serious, then obviously you've contradicted yourself calling it a
a boring (non issue) working group
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.
I am working to please the members. I'm doing this in a completely voluntary capacity - what have you done in the past week for auDA 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)
From what perspective? From an auDA member perspective: yes.
From a CMWG perspective: As we've said, both at the SGM, and Monday's forum - operational issues, such as current membership, are not in the groups terms of reference.
Ok enough brick bats, here's a bouquet, thanks for coming on here and answering our questions.
