What's new

Branch stacking!

DomainNames

Top Contributor
WOW ...HAVE FUN!

Offshore Leaks Database
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/81043291

Level 20 ; 101 Collins St; Melbourne; VIC 3000; Australia

About this database
This ICIJ database contains information on more than 785,000 offshore entities that are part of the Panama Papers, the Offshore Leaks, the Bahamas Leaks and the Paradise Papers investigations. The data covers nearly 80 years up to 2016 and links to people and companies in more than 200 countries and territories.


 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
How much has auDA Management paid their Liberal Party mate Alister Paterson directly or via his associated company('s?)
  • Should it have been disclosed on auDA Board Minutes?
  • Should it have been disclosed on financials and public annual reports for auDA Members to have accountability and transparency about?
  • What else is auDA current management and current Board hiding from auDA members, stakeholders and other areas of the Government?

"auDA has commissioned Alister Paterson of Paterson Media" auDA CEO Cameron Boardman
https://www.auda.org.au/mailouts/au...nd+new+directors+announced+to+take+us+forward

Head of Government Affairs and Strategic Adviser at auDA
ALISTER PATERSON - PATERSON MEDIA - ABN 73 247 840 448
Level 20, 101 Collins street, Melbourne VIC 3000
https://au.linkedin.com/in/alister-paterson-8b17405a

https://www.google.com/search?q=alister+paterson+liberal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

https://www.google.com/search?q=alister+paterson+liberal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

"Darryn Lyons’ right-hand-man Alister Paterson finally leaves council job
Greg Dundas, Geelong Advertiser
May 25, 2016 12:01am
THE former Liberal MP who got the high-paid job as right-hand man to departed Geelong mayor Darryn Lyons has left City Hall.

Alister Paterson’s stint as executive officer to the mayor ended last week, five weeks after Mr Lyons and the 12 ward councillors were sacked by the State Government.


Mr Paterson was South Barwon MP for a decade until 2002, and was anointed for a job at the City of Greater Geelong by Mr Lyons on the day he was sworn in as mayor in 2013.

Within weeks Mr Paterson was on the payroll at City Hall, first in a temporary role then on a fixed contract.

CITY HALL ADMIN TRIO APPOINTED

That contract was reportedly worth about $180,000 a year a similar amount to the mayoral salary — and linked to the council’s term in office, which was scheduled to expire in October this year."
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
How much has auDA Management paid their Liberal Party mate Alister Paterson directly or via his associated company('s?)
  • Should it have been disclosed on auDA Board Minutes?
  • Should it have been disclosed on financials and public annual reports for auDA Members to have accountability and transparency about?
  • What else is auDA current management and current Board hiding from auDA members, stakeholders and other areas of the Government?

"auDA has commissioned Alister Paterson of Paterson Media" auDA CEO Cameron Boardman
https://www.auda.org.au/mailouts/au...nd+new+directors+announced+to+take+us+forward

Head of Government Affairs and Strategic Adviser at auDA
ALISTER PATERSON - PATERSON MEDIA - ABN 73 247 840 448
Level 20, 101 Collins street, Melbourne VIC 3000
https://au.linkedin.com/in/alister-paterson-8b17405a

https://www.google.com/search?q=alister+paterson+liberal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

https://www.google.com/search?q=alister+paterson+liberal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

"Darryn Lyons’ right-hand-man Alister Paterson finally leaves council job
Greg Dundas, Geelong Advertiser
May 25, 2016 12:01am
THE former Liberal MP who got the high-paid job as right-hand man to departed Geelong mayor Darryn Lyons has left City Hall.

Alister Paterson’s stint as executive officer to the mayor ended last week, five weeks after Mr Lyons and the 12 ward councillors were sacked by the State Government.


Mr Paterson was South Barwon MP for a decade until 2002, and was anointed for a job at the City of Greater Geelong by Mr Lyons on the day he was sworn in as mayor in 2013.

Within weeks Mr Paterson was on the payroll at City Hall, first in a temporary role then on a fixed contract.

CITY HALL ADMIN TRIO APPOINTED

That contract was reportedly worth about $180,000 a year a similar amount to the mayoral salary — and linked to the council’s term in office, which was scheduled to expire in October this year."
upload_2018-6-26_14-43-7.jpeg
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor

DomainNames

Top Contributor
upload_2018-6-26_14-44-14.jpeg
  1. Mentone Liberal Party Mitch Fifield http://mitchfifield.com/Contact.aspx
    42 Florence Street Mentone VIC 3194
  2. Mentone Liberal Party Simon Johnson- PO BOX 406 Mentone Victoria,3194 ( see attached)
  3. Mentone Liberal Party Cameron Boardman President of the Mentone branch from 1995–96 https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_aud
  4. Mentone Liberal Party Stuart Benjamin https://personlookup.com.au/reverse/359711454
    Plummer Rd, Mentone, VIC 3194.
  5. Chris Leptos auDA Liberal Party donor
  6. Alister Paterson auDA Liberal Party ex MP
  7. Ian Hanke auDA Liberal Party Spin Doctor? https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/...spin-doctor-ian-hanke-why-for-how-much.11925/
  8. Who is next to be listed..... How much have they been paid by current auDA Management?
  9. Who is next to be listed..... How much have they been paid by current auDA Management?
  10. Who is next to be listed..... How much have they been paid by current auDA Management?
  11. Who is next to be listed..... How much have they been paid by current auDA Management?
Chris Leptos Another member of the Liberal Party of Australia?

Funding & Disclosure Section - AEC The 500 Club/Liberal party



http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Returns/7/E2354.pdf

Add to the list auDA Liberal Party Alister Paterson
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alister-paterson-8b17405a
Alister Irvine Paterson
(born 14 March 1959) is a former Australian politician. He was the Liberal member for South Barwon in the Victorian Legislative Assembly from 1992 to 2002.
 
Last edited:

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Suzie Ewart and Sandra Hook are also on the Chairman's Committee [what the Hell is that]? regardless, these independent Directors decided to change the Membership Model by approving the 955 foreign members, this decision itself is both foreign to the Constitution and to all those members prior to its decision?

How is the CMWG suppose to deal with this Decision when presenting Membership Models? I guess Suzie and Sandra Don't mind if we all sign up our kids, why not sign up their friends, why not the under 16 footy club, they all know what a domain name is, do you?

  1. These 3 independent Directors are subject to an SGM on July 27th because in the eyes of many [not just a couple of disgruntled Domainers] they have let down everyone in terms of Governance and Transparency. Oh those 2 words must be the most repugnant words at auDA today.
  2. These 3 Independents subject to SGM are responsible for making decisions that changed the Membership Model without consensus from the Members.
  3. they changed the entire 18 year culture of the Membership organisation without a single thought on how it might bring extreme criticism against the company. [whats that rule - don't bring the company into disrepute]

Not surprising, the Government stepped in and basically said; Management, your not fit to run this House. so why are we all entertaining the idea of CMWG forum when, the Board that has already installed 2 membership models, foreign members, supply side employees as members, and partridge in a pear tree before CMWG has even begun to discuss it?
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Yep they're wrecking the joint before they get kicked out.

They should step aside from all responsibilities and decision making until the SGM vote has taken place.

That would have been the ethical thing to do.... If only we had some directors who were independent and had a backbone to stand up and point that out.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
what scares me is their succession plan, who is going to replace them, Abbot and Costello?

Just another point in regard to the foreign member decision, I would love to see the Security and Risk and Governance Committee minutes on this matter; it's funny you know, auDA did publish committee minutes but it stopped doing it about 2 years ago. It was once a good practice, a good governance practice. But, as we all know, we had to fight tooth and nail to get those Board Minutes back to public disclosure, auDA Promised that they would restore all the minutes, but the committee minutes were never returned.

Now a weird Chairman Committee has emerged – obviously this triad of 2 and ½ women do not want to publicly demonstrate Good governance or Transparency through this committee by publishing their minutes; Hell, publishing what they actually do on that committee would be a good start.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
They should step aside from all responsibilities and decision making until the SGM vote has taken place.

That would have been the ethical thing to do.... If only we had some directors who were independent and had a backbone to stand up and point that out.

yeah, I'm like 70% agreeable on this, 30% doesn't know what the Hell to think. In my opinion its a conflict of interest, and to approve members under these circumstances is wrong; something more could of been done to bridge that conflict whilst continuing to fulfill the Gov Review Rec's.
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
yeah, I'm like 70% agreeable on this, 30% doesn't know what the Hell to think. In my opinion its a conflict of interest, and to approve members under these circumstances is wrong; something more could of been done to bridge that conflict whilst continuing to fulfill the Gov Review Rec's.

They will not go until voted out at the SGM.

Follow the money and potential $170,000+ expenses they voted Independent Directors would get if they ram and stack it through at the AGM.

Who knows what the auDA Chair Chris Leptos is being paid?

Here is what the CIRA Board gets paid and they do far more with responsibility also as Board of the Canada Wholesale Registry!

  • Accountable
  • Transparent
_______________________
https://cira.ca/board-compensation

"Board compensation
Remuneration to elected CIRA directors is based on the following principles:
  • Attract and retain skilled, productive board members with core governance competencies.
  • Ensure external market competitiveness and equity.
  • Recognize the additional responsibilities undertaken by the chair, vice-chair and committee chairs.
  • Be fiscally responsible and consistent with corporate governance best practices.
The board ensures a review of compensation for elected directors by an independant consultant every three years, using the principles set out in this section, to ensure compensation practices are current and in line with the market.

Going forward, the comparable market (a 50%/50% composite of national not-for-profit and high tech private sector) will be used as a reference point to calculate appropriate compensation.

These principles are based on a review conducted by an independent consulting firm in July 2009. The purpose of the review was to ensure compensation remains consistent with that of directors serving in similar industries and organizations of comparable size to CIRA.

Who mandated the board compensation package?

The CIRA membership overwhelmingly approved a by-law amendment package at a Special Members’ Meeting (SMM) February 1, 2006, in Toronto. This included an amendment to By-Law 1, section 3.15 (c), directing the board to retain the services of an independent consulting firm to establish compensation to which elected directors are entitled for performance of their duties.

The by-law change package was approved by Member vote, with 251 of 307 Members (81.75%) present voting to pass the changes.

Who developed the compensation package?

A third-party human resources consulting firm was hired by CIRA to conduct a board compensation survey. Twelve organizations of a similar size, scope and class were surveyed to form a comparison baseline. The consulting firm prepared a compensation framework for the board of directors based on the survey results. This framework was used to draft the compensation proposal brought forward to and approved by CIRA Members.

How was the survey for the Members’ consultation conducted?

With the help of a market research firm, CIRA surveyed its Members in early 2007 to measure support for the proposed board of directors compensation package. Members were contacted January 8, 2007 by email to participate in an online survey. Members were given instructions, background information and the proposed compensation package. The survey asked, “Do you agree that the proposed compensation plan for elected directors is reasonable?” Members were also given the opportunity to provide comment.

What were the results from the Members’ consultation for the board compensation package?

Members were invited to participate in the survey via a mass email sent to 249,990 Members. The survey generated significant response:

  • 12,675 Members completed the survey.
  • A 70.5% majority voted “yes” and agreed with the proposal, demonstrating strong support for the compensation plan.
  • 14.6% cast a “no” vote, indicating they didn’t agree with the proposed compensation plan.
  • 14.8% answered “no opinion.”
Which board directors are eligible for compensation?

Elected board directors of CIRA are given remuneration to recognize their time and effort and to help the organization attract and retain experienced and knowledgeable members to its Board.

The three board advisors, including CIRA’s president and CEO, Industry Canada’s representative, and John Demco, are not eligible for compensation.

Why are CIRA board directors compensated?

Based on the results of the review of similar non-profit organizations, a compensation plan for CIRA Directors was developed to:

  1. Attract and retain skilled, productive board members representative of the Canadian population.
  2. Ensure external market competitiveness and internal equity.
  3. Recognize the additional responsibilities undertaken by the executive committee and the committee chairs.
  4. Be fiscally responsible and consistent with corporate governance best practices.
Board members can also donate their compensation to a charity of their choice.

What compensation do CIRA directors receive?

Directors are compensated based on their role within the board of directors, the number and types of meetings they attend, and any additional committee work performed.

CIRA director compensation schedule - CURRENT AS AT 26 JUNE 2018. CONFIRMED VIA PHONE AND EMAIL WITH CIRA

Chair
Annual Retainer: $20,000
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

Vice-chair/committee chairs/corporate secretary
Annual Retainer: $12,000***
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

Director
Annual Retainer: $10,000
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

***In the event that a board member is the chair of two or more committees or holds the position of vice-chair or corporate secretary and also is the chair of one or more committees then the annual retainer will be $14,000. There is no additional retainer for the chair in the event that the chair also is the chair of one or more committees."
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
They will not go until voted out at the SGM.

Follow the money and potential $170,000+ expenses they voted Independent Directors would get if they ram and stack it through at the AGM.

Who knows what the auDA Chair Chris Leptos is being paid?

Here is what the CIRA Board gets paid and they do far more with responsibility also as Board of the Canada Wholesale Registry!

  • Accountable
  • Transparent
_______________________
https://cira.ca/board-compensation

"Board compensation
Remuneration to elected CIRA directors is based on the following principles:
  • Attract and retain skilled, productive board members with core governance competencies.
  • Ensure external market competitiveness and equity.
  • Recognize the additional responsibilities undertaken by the chair, vice-chair and committee chairs.
  • Be fiscally responsible and consistent with corporate governance best practices.
The board ensures a review of compensation for elected directors by an independant consultant every three years, using the principles set out in this section, to ensure compensation practices are current and in line with the market.

Going forward, the comparable market (a 50%/50% composite of national not-for-profit and high tech private sector) will be used as a reference point to calculate appropriate compensation.

These principles are based on a review conducted by an independent consulting firm in July 2009. The purpose of the review was to ensure compensation remains consistent with that of directors serving in similar industries and organizations of comparable size to CIRA.

Who mandated the board compensation package?

The CIRA membership overwhelmingly approved a by-law amendment package at a Special Members’ Meeting (SMM) February 1, 2006, in Toronto. This included an amendment to By-Law 1, section 3.15 (c), directing the board to retain the services of an independent consulting firm to establish compensation to which elected directors are entitled for performance of their duties.

The by-law change package was approved by Member vote, with 251 of 307 Members (81.75%) present voting to pass the changes.

Who developed the compensation package?

A third-party human resources consulting firm was hired by CIRA to conduct a board compensation survey. Twelve organizations of a similar size, scope and class were surveyed to form a comparison baseline. The consulting firm prepared a compensation framework for the board of directors based on the survey results. This framework was used to draft the compensation proposal brought forward to and approved by CIRA Members.

How was the survey for the Members’ consultation conducted?

With the help of a market research firm, CIRA surveyed its Members in early 2007 to measure support for the proposed board of directors compensation package. Members were contacted January 8, 2007 by email to participate in an online survey. Members were given instructions, background information and the proposed compensation package. The survey asked, “Do you agree that the proposed compensation plan for elected directors is reasonable?” Members were also given the opportunity to provide comment.

What were the results from the Members’ consultation for the board compensation package?

Members were invited to participate in the survey via a mass email sent to 249,990 Members. The survey generated significant response:

  • 12,675 Members completed the survey.
  • A 70.5% majority voted “yes” and agreed with the proposal, demonstrating strong support for the compensation plan.
  • 14.6% cast a “no” vote, indicating they didn’t agree with the proposed compensation plan.
  • 14.8% answered “no opinion.”
Which board directors are eligible for compensation?

Elected board directors of CIRA are given remuneration to recognize their time and effort and to help the organization attract and retain experienced and knowledgeable members to its Board.

The three board advisors, including CIRA’s president and CEO, Industry Canada’s representative, and John Demco, are not eligible for compensation.

Why are CIRA board directors compensated?

Based on the results of the review of similar non-profit organizations, a compensation plan for CIRA Directors was developed to:

  1. Attract and retain skilled, productive board members representative of the Canadian population.
  2. Ensure external market competitiveness and internal equity.
  3. Recognize the additional responsibilities undertaken by the executive committee and the committee chairs.
  4. Be fiscally responsible and consistent with corporate governance best practices.
Board members can also donate their compensation to a charity of their choice.

What compensation do CIRA directors receive?

Directors are compensated based on their role within the board of directors, the number and types of meetings they attend, and any additional committee work performed.

CIRA director compensation schedule - CURRENT AS AT 26 JUNE 2018. CONFIRMED VIA PHONE AND EMAIL WITH CIRA

Chair
Annual Retainer: $20,000
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

Vice-chair/committee chairs/corporate secretary
Annual Retainer: $12,000***
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

Director
Annual Retainer: $10,000
Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

***In the event that a board member is the chair of two or more committees or holds the position of vice-chair or corporate secretary and also is the chair of one or more committees then the annual retainer will be $14,000. There is no additional retainer for the chair in the event that the chair also is the chair of one or more committees."

"Board members can also donate their compensation to a charity of their choice." CIRA
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
what scares me is their succession plan, who is going to replace them, Abbot and Costello?

It would need a complete rethink by the remaining directors. If they choose more politician types the place is doomed. Hopefully some of the other long term directors will step down at the same time so a fresh start can take place.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
It would need a complete rethink by the remaining directors. If they choose more politician types the place is doomed. Hopefully some of the other long term directors will step down at the same time so a fresh start can take place.

the Gov Rec stated;

"The current process where the majority of directors are appointed from the membership does not support effective governance outcomes."

How did it get that way? Obviously Its not all the Member Elected Directors that ruined the Governance of auDA, its The Board appointed Directors who obtained their positions through a quorum of Board bullies hell bent on managing elected directors off the Board. It hasn't been a well balanced Board in terms of elected Directors representing Demand class members; what has the Governance Committee Chair [Sandra Hook] done about these issues? Nothing...Absolutely Nothing.

26th March Board Meeting
Governance Report;
Sandra Hook informed the Directors that their was nothing to report. WTF [I imagine there would be a mountain of issues to report on]

23rd May Board Meeting
Governance report
Sandra Hook is to work out a nominations committee structure, Board charter, and a definition for the Role of Chair and CEO.

....and that's all folks - that's all we have about it. auDA is falling apart, and that's all we have from the Chair of the Governance Committee. Even if shes been working hard behind the scenes it hasn't translated into anything good. This independent Director is at the Helm of Director Appointment, responsible for the introduction of foreign members into auDA, and subject to a SGM to get rid of her, does anyone really believe she has supported effective governance outcomes?

Also, Directors are directly responsible for membership approval, and yet, its the Board who have muddied the waters of the Membership to conceal their agenda. [stacking it in their favor] even the independents are in on this charade because they are appointed by the very Board captured by a quorum, and as long as they have one Elected Demand Class Member at their meetings it doesn't matter what they decide to do as a quorum, does anyone really believe this supports effective governance outcomes?

The Gov Rev statement is really ironic...the Board decides to approve the members and this did not support good governance because those who approved the members were the Directors Elected by the Members. And those Directors who did not conform to this tyrant of a quorum were bullied out and replaced by Directors that are more 'agreeable' to their aims. So what did the Governance Committee do about it? Nuffen.
 
Last edited:

Scott.L

Top Contributor
auDA implantation plan – re: Government Review

Recommendation 10. Government Review

upload_2018-6-27_16-23-10.png

upload_2018-6-27_16-23-55.png
Exactly what was this New membership Application Process procedure adopted by the Board in March, and why have we not seen it? What is the new membership applicant policy?

Recommendation 10. Makes it obvious, auDA must provide transparent Membership Guidelines. Previously, it was minuted in auDA minutes that each member was to be telephoned and required to answer a couple of simple questions about why they joined.

What is the new process and why have the members not been told about it since March.

upload_2018-6-27_16-24-20.png

Industry Partner campaign focused on supply side employee as your best effort to broaden the membership and provide a “basis of constitutional reform” well we all know what that means, to bring about non-contestable changes to auDA?

Who has ever considered an "industry Partner" an under-represented party within the Australian Internet Community?

did auDA read - Government Recommendation 11.


11. That auDA diversify its member base in the short-term with a focus on extending membership to stakeholders that are underrepresented.

Government Recommendation 12.

12. That auDA report annually on its initiatives for growing its membership, and their effectiveness at diversifying the membership in its Annual Report and at its Annual General Meeting.

Simply means, reporting on how well auDA grew the “Diversity of Membership” it’s not about increasing member numbers – its not about increasing supply side numbers through supply side employee applicants.

Its about growing the diversity of numbers within the membership, broadening it to include, charities, universities, Media [print and electronic] Telco's, Retail Traders...


 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-27_16-27-11.png
    upload_2018-6-27_16-27-11.png
    24.5 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:

snoopy

Top Contributor
Probably worth keeping a list of all the points in the government review that auDA have not kept to or have done the opposite. At the moment they are simply doing what will keep them in their jobs and are thumbing their nose at terms of the review.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
"The current process where the majority of directors are appointed from the membership does not support effective governance outcomes."

Half the Board is composed of NON-ELECTED MEMBERS and its governance structure remains a Mess, even its independent directors are all captured by a rotting log stuck in their eye.

Transparency and accountability
auDA minutes: Best practice.

upload_2018-6-27_16-55-1.png
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
11,106
Messages
92,078
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top