Call for nominations for election to auDA Board

[Ashman]

Thanks Tim, well you know a lot about me! I know most people on the forum personally including yourself, I try to meet members when I can. I have always had an open door policy when it comes to domain name issues and auDA matters. If you ever have any questions about auDA or general domain name issues give me a buzz

I am organising a function at the moment and will release some details shortly.

Erhan, since you are a director of auDA and may at some time seek re-election I would like to know how you and other current and future directors would resolve the potential for conflicts of interest.

Haven't you represented some supply class members as a solicitor in the past and wouldn't such a relationship based on a mutual friendship or business relationship prohibit you from making unbiased decisions in the future?

Are such personal or business relationships allowed under the auDA constitution?

Furthermore, since some decision making might involve supply class members would that exclude you from voting on certain issues?

With so many potential conflicts of interest I find it difficult to resolve how you could actually make a difference in administering the Domain Name System in Australia's National Interest and not just in the interests of certain stakeholders.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Ashman

I don't think you understand that auDA is a multi stakeholder model, it was deliberately set up to allow stake holders from various backgrounds to participate, for example we have directors who have a consumer advocacy background, and others who come from a Registrar or Reseller background. It is this diversity of views which enables auDA to effectively administer the domain name system in Australia's national interest.

The system is effective because one particular group doesn't get to dominate the board. I'm not saying that everything is perfect, or that things can't be improved, but the current model is in my view the most representative.

Like in any other company board, where a director has a potential conflict of interest, they are required to abstain from voting on a particular issue. Directors in almost every board in Australia will at some time have to refrain from discussing or voting on an issue.

I don't intend to write a thesis on the Corporations Act about how company boards operate but seeing as you are not familiar with the process, I suggest you read the Corporations Act or get some of the publications from the institute of company directors.

PS. Policy is developed by the panel process not the directors, that is why I am always telling DNTrade members to get involved in the panels, as that is where major changes in policy can occur

 

[Ashman]

I don't intend to write a thesis on the Corporations Act about how company boards operate but seeing as you are not familiar with the process, I suggest you read the Corporations Act or get some of the publications from the institute of company directors.

Erhan, I am familiar with the Corporations Act, hence why I asked. I thought you would have understood the basis of my question was pertaining to Directors Duties under the Law.

Since you cannot answer my question about your potential conflicts of interest directly I will assume that you simply abstain from voting when such an issue arises. Is that correct?

Since the auDA model is multi stakeholder and with so many potential conflicts of interest it would appear that more could be done internally if board members had no previous relationships with registrars.

It is the supply side that needs an overhaul IMO, especially since Netfleet have recently shown a complete disregard for the National Interest in administering the Domain Name System.

Netfleet have only sough to pursue a policy of establishing a complete monopoly which undermines the integrity of the system, along with other acts which made them appear to be doing the wrong thing. (Shill Bidding, No Transparency...etc)

By the way Erhan what is your opinion regarding the conduct of Netfleet in recent times? I know you having been on the forum and would be aware of the recent issues. Have you reported back to the Board and sought any additional clarification if Netfleet have breached any aspects of the constitution? This is what I am referring to:

CONSTITUTION

3.2 Activities

Without reducing the effect of clause 4, auDA will enhance the benefits to Internet users through:

c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;
d. the promotion of fair trading;
e. the promotion of consumer protection;
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;

It is my opinion that auDA have been serverly lacking in the areas listing above and which are covered under the constitution. Erhan, it appears that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

Anyway you must be a busy man so I won't take up any more of your time but I think it is important that auDA members know who and what they are voting for. Good luck.

 

[FirstPageResults]

Since the auDA model is multi stakeholder and with so many potential conflicts of interest it would appear that more could be done internally if board members had no previous relationships with registrars.

So you'd prefer directors to represent the supply side who have no history of working in that area? Who would be better suited?

 

[David Goldstein]

I'm not here defending Josh and his lack of participation and whether it is justified. But one of the disincentives to participating in the issues discussed here is that DN Trade members in general are only interested in domaining issues and not looking at issues as they would benefit all types of registrants. I accept that the reason for this forum is domaining interests, but domain names are not just for domainers, they are for all people.

I have a number of issues I've pushed on the two policy panels I have been involved in. One that particularly irks me is that individuals can only use the unwanted and unloved .id.au 2LD. Yet in France, for example, roughly 50% of all registrations are for individuals. OK, some individuals register their personal domains in .com.au because they've got an ABN. But it's ludicrous to "gift" .com so many registrations when they could be in .au. Which is where most would go.

 

[findtim]

......But one of the disincentives to participating in the issues discussed here is that DN Trade members in general are only interested in domaining issues and not looking at issues as they would benefit all types of registrants. I accept that the reason for this forum is domaining interests, but domain names are not just for domainers, they are for all people.

I think this is a greatly misinformed comment, one from someone that doesn't read or engage in dnt and the many quality conversations about the industry that go on. It sounds like you came up with this thought years ago and haven't bothered to update your mindset.

disincentives to participating.......

WOW, did you not take the time to look at the diversity of thread categories on DNT? Dnt is embracing more development, legal, social issues every day. dnt is a HUGE knowledge base focused on doing the RIGHT THING, I would go to say EVERY member wants the "cyber squatting" to go away and are acting so it does.

and then on DNT you get people like ME, a person that represents a large group of business owners across Australia and I try my hardest to protect there businesses online, without my knowledge and guidance they would not have the online presences they have today, WHY, because of the time I have spent learning from other dnt members and reading countless post, asking advice, getting confidential PM's , so to come on here and say you find US as not worthy of talking to is absolutely insulting.

these everyday business people haven't a clue, don't have time to find out, and the way that i'm now finding auda works is they are also NOT getting informed.

I eagerly wait your reply, make it a good one and if you plan to give me political BS then throw your towel in the ring right now as you are so wrong in MY opinion.

tim

 

[David Goldstein]

That's funny "Findtim". I just had a quick browse of topics and the vast majority of them deal with domain name aftermarket issues. Maybe you should go and check out the topics and see for yourself. And be informed.

 

[findtim]

I just had a quick browse of topics .

that is just an amazing reply

Maybe you should go and check out the topics and see for yourself. And be informed

you just made our "Friday funnies" top 3 list for 2013

tim

 

[Honan]

is there such a thing as vocational vilification?

 

[chris]

I'm not here defending Josh and his lack of participation and whether it is justified. But one of the disincentives to participating in the issues discussed here is that DN Trade members in general are only interested in domaining issues and not looking at issues as they would benefit all types of registrants. I accept that the reason for this forum is domaining interests, but domain names are not just for domainers, they are for all people.

Hi David, thanks for your comments but we actually do have quite a broad membership base. We certainly have our pure domainers on DNTrade, but as Tim mentioned there are also many active members who are developers, webmasters and marketers etc., all with a keen interest in .au domain names. Many of us also represent clients who fall in the category of "all types of registrants". DNTrade is a community for anyone with an interest in domain names, at whatever level.

When it comes down to it, we all have one common interest - strengthening the .au domain space. I'd really encourage you to start a thread if you have any issues you'd like to discuss, you might be surprised what members are interested in

Cheers,
Chris

 

[petermeadit]

If you go to 'Quick Links' -> 'Today's Posts' there always seems to be a variety of topics.

One thing I have noticed with my clients, is that many, many small business owners who are getting sites build, quite often end up with a dozen or so domains. I would never consider them domainers, but they are trying to get the best domain names for their small businesses.

The audience is getting very broad IMHO

 

[James]

That's funny "Findtim". I just had a quick browse of topics and the vast majority of them deal with domain name aftermarket issues. Maybe you should go and check out the topics and see for yourself. And be informed.

Actually I think the Online Marketing sections are pretty active on this forum. Many Online Marketing professionals use this forum. As I know the market very well I see who posts in here. Also the dev forums are usually pretty active.

Its not really a good idea to come in here and make assumptions on the user base when not been an active member.

From my opinion you have the following member base here:

1. Full time domain name traders.
2. Online Marketing Professionals.
3. Web Developers.
4. People who have some slight interest in domains or a specific question to ask.
5. People who want to learn more about domains.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Wow this "election time" forum participant accuses Tim of only discussing domaining issues. Hilarious!

 

[David Goldstein]

Having just voted I recalled the shock and horror at having to vote using a fax. It seems people don't read. You can also post in your vote. Or rather could. There's a good argument for electronic voting, but no doubt there is a cost to it and for one vote per year, is it worthwhile? Maybe someone can go to the AGM and ask why there isn't a way to vote electronically, or even email a scanned copy of one's vote.

And I still stand by my point that the majority of discussions here are domaining-related. And on issues that related to auDA and policy, there's a lot of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

 

[findtim]

You can also post in your vote.

I remember those things, they had pretty stamps on them didn't they?

or even email a scanned copy of one's vote.

I was just waiting for a Friday funny and you made the list again

tim

 

[findtim]

Maybe someone can go to the AGM and ask why there isn't a way to vote electronically, or even email a scanned copy of one's vote.

WHY? why should a member have to enlighten a group of people in control of domains/internet into the real world that doesn't involve a FAX !

tim

 

[FirstPageResults]

Having just voted I recalled the shock and horror at having to vote using a fax. It seems people don't read. You can also post in your vote. Or rather could. There's a good argument for electronic voting, but no doubt there is a cost to it and for one vote per year, is it worthwhile? Maybe someone can go to the AGM and ask why there isn't a way to vote electronically, or even email a scanned copy of one's vote.

If they sent a replied paid envelope I'd definitely fill it out.

Surely if auDA can pour money into the failed CGDN scheme, then some money could be allocated for electronic voting. Email would be fine with me.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Yep agreed or the auDA Foundation grants.

"The auDA Foundation aims to enhance the utility of the Internet for all Australians. The Foundation typically offers grants in the range of $5,000 to $25,000 to not-for-profit organisations and research institutions."

http://www.audafoundation.org.au/funding-information/

 

[David Goldstein]

I guess on the topics it's a matter of opinion. If I was running for the board I'd be hard pressed to spend much time here because it takes quite a bit of time following a number of threads that may one day have something relevant. Plus most of it's uninformed comment. Such as the moaning that one has to fax in votes for the board. OK, it's arguable there should be other options, but it makes the complainer look stupid when they don't even realise they can post in their vote.

 

[findtim]

I guess on the topics it's a matter of opinion. If I was running for the board I'd be hard pressed to spend much time here because it takes quite a bit of time following a number of threads that may one day have something relevant. Plus most of it's uninformed comment. Such as the moaning that one has to fax in votes for the board. OK, it's arguable there should be other options, but it makes the complainer look stupid when they don't even realise they can post in their vote.

you continue to astound me. can you post every Friday please

tim