Andrew Wright
Top Contributor
So can anyone buy the auDA member email list and spam the membership?
Interesting reading from Adrian Kinderis
- Thread starter snoopy
- Start date
DomainNames
Top Contributor
It looks like yes!
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
Hi Andrew
Any auDA member can request a copy of the member list. The Grumpies have done this too. As my post states, I emailed everyone today in response to being named in their email. If you haven't read it already, please have a look at this...
http://theluckygeneral.biz/2018/07/03/auda-latest-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-for-now-at-least/
/LP
Any auDA member can request a copy of the member list. The Grumpies have done this too. As my post states, I emailed everyone today in response to being named in their email. If you haven't read it already, please have a look at this...
http://theluckygeneral.biz/2018/07/03/auda-latest-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-for-now-at-least/
/LP
Drop.com.au
Top Contributor
Laurie,
Only caring about domain name allocation operating effectively is like only caring that cars are moving without worrying about roadworthy certificates, drivers licenses, traffic control, speed limits and the myriad of other functions which keep our informational roadways operating the way we expect them to.
What you are encountering online is a group of people who have experience and interactions with the various pieces of the technical and legislative processes which make the domain name allocation system work. Over the last two years they have systematically been excluded from giving input as members and in frustration they are taking to the streets with pitchforks. While I am not the fan of pitchforks approach I am also not a fan of being excluded from auDA either.
To me it feels like a our direction is being dictated to us as members. Considering that auDA is a monopoly it is of a concern to me that it would then be run in this way when we have historically had a consensus driven approach to change. To me the CEO is supposed to be the custodian of our collective will rather than the current dictator of our direction. I've obviously discussed with the CEO before and I think we both agree he is not the guy to sit around and babysit our ideas, he is a very strong leader with an incredible will to implement the changes he believes are necessary in order to go in the direction he needs us to head in. I'd even concede that the direction he wants to go in might be the right direction most of the time and will still result in domain name allocation working effectively. The problem I have with all that is what happens if it goes a little bit wrong? What happens if it goes totally wrong? Why would anyone want to ignore literally thousands of years of collective experience in the membership base?
- Anthony
snoopy
Top Contributor
Did you buy the list?
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
Hi Anthony
Thank you for what is undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful contributions I've seen on this issue recently. Before I respond, I need to reiterate that these are my thoughts alone and have not been canvassed with anyone else – whether others choose to believe me or not. They are, also, the product of my experiences with, and observations of, auDA over a number of years. When I talk about domain name allocation being “effective” I am looking broadly at, and include, all the issues equivalent to "roadworthy certificates, driver’s licenses, traffic control, speed limits and the myriad of other functions" in your automotive analogy. So far as I can see there are no serious operational problems being raised. What I see here is much as I sometimes encountered at Internet Australia – strong-willed, opinionated and no doubt highly technically qualified people who don’t like not having their views considered (and in particular, don't like it when decisions are made with which they disagree). Add to that a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate governance principles and all hell breaks loose. When you say "it feels like our direction is being dictated to us" this simply reflects how any representative organisation operates. Boards are elected to represent members (or shareholders) and given the primary responsibility for setting the policies and direction of the organisation. The board then appoints a CEO to carry out their instructions. If you don’t like the direction of the organisation you try to change the board, which is what the Grumpies are attempting to do. Fair enough. Let’s see if they succeed, in which case a new board may (but may still not) follow their wishes. If they don’t succeed, surely it is a "put up, then shut up” situation? If the majority of members support the current board then that's that until the next AGM. I think there is also a fundamental misunderstanding of auDA’s role. auDA is not Internet Australia, Comms Alliance, Telsoc, etc. Those are member organisations run entirely by and for their members. They have no other statutory or other responsibilities. auDA, on the other hand, has a remit from the Government to manage the domain name system on behalf of all Australians – not just auDA members, and certainly not just "domainers" (who clearly have an inherent conflict of interest). This is why the Government has intervened to demand improvements in governance processes. It is also why it is insisting on a majority of independent board members. In terms of what happens if things go wrong, the answer is straight forward. The auDA board is ultimately held responsible just as in any organisation, with the precondition that the CEO would have been dismissed if they were the cause of a serious failing. The Government has given the auDA board three months to sort things out or face further intervention. A process is underway to achieve this and it looks pretty consultative to me (http://theluckygeneral.biz/2018/07/03/auda-latest-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-for-now-at-least/). The problem I have with the Grumpies is they seem to simply be a (small) group unhappy about not getting their own way.
Cheers
LAURIE PATTON | 10 July 2018
Thank you for what is undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful contributions I've seen on this issue recently. Before I respond, I need to reiterate that these are my thoughts alone and have not been canvassed with anyone else – whether others choose to believe me or not. They are, also, the product of my experiences with, and observations of, auDA over a number of years. When I talk about domain name allocation being “effective” I am looking broadly at, and include, all the issues equivalent to "roadworthy certificates, driver’s licenses, traffic control, speed limits and the myriad of other functions" in your automotive analogy. So far as I can see there are no serious operational problems being raised. What I see here is much as I sometimes encountered at Internet Australia – strong-willed, opinionated and no doubt highly technically qualified people who don’t like not having their views considered (and in particular, don't like it when decisions are made with which they disagree). Add to that a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate governance principles and all hell breaks loose. When you say "it feels like our direction is being dictated to us" this simply reflects how any representative organisation operates. Boards are elected to represent members (or shareholders) and given the primary responsibility for setting the policies and direction of the organisation. The board then appoints a CEO to carry out their instructions. If you don’t like the direction of the organisation you try to change the board, which is what the Grumpies are attempting to do. Fair enough. Let’s see if they succeed, in which case a new board may (but may still not) follow their wishes. If they don’t succeed, surely it is a "put up, then shut up” situation? If the majority of members support the current board then that's that until the next AGM. I think there is also a fundamental misunderstanding of auDA’s role. auDA is not Internet Australia, Comms Alliance, Telsoc, etc. Those are member organisations run entirely by and for their members. They have no other statutory or other responsibilities. auDA, on the other hand, has a remit from the Government to manage the domain name system on behalf of all Australians – not just auDA members, and certainly not just "domainers" (who clearly have an inherent conflict of interest). This is why the Government has intervened to demand improvements in governance processes. It is also why it is insisting on a majority of independent board members. In terms of what happens if things go wrong, the answer is straight forward. The auDA board is ultimately held responsible just as in any organisation, with the precondition that the CEO would have been dismissed if they were the cause of a serious failing. The Government has given the auDA board three months to sort things out or face further intervention. A process is underway to achieve this and it looks pretty consultative to me (http://theluckygeneral.biz/2018/07/03/auda-latest-all-quiet-on-the-western-front-for-now-at-least/). The problem I have with the Grumpies is they seem to simply be a (small) group unhappy about not getting their own way.
Cheers
LAURIE PATTON | 10 July 2018
Last edited:
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
Yes, with my own money.
findtim
Top Contributor
yes, not sure if YOU also have to be a member but thats just a extra $22 hurdle i guess.
also when i went to election i was given the list as all nominees are but ONLY the class in which you nominate in.
tim
Andrew Wright
Top Contributor
Not attacking the messenger, but where does it say in the auDA membership application that you consent for your personal details to be sold to third parties?
Hmm... https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/spam-complaint-form-email
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Everyone knows you are being paid to post on forums and you have been provided materials from current auDA management to try and peddle.
You know little if nothing about .au domain names or the global domain name industry.
You use .BIZ yourself as a domain name.
Where is your actual support and use of the .au domain name extension?
Last edited by a moderator:
Drop.com.au
Top Contributor
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
Oh dear. Once more, with feeling. This is the disclosure that has accompanied all my posts...
(Laurie Patton is a member of auDA and the former CEO/Executive Director of Internet Australia. He is currently advising Afilias Australia, the company that took over the management of the .au registry for auDA from 1 July 2018. However, the views expressed here are his own and have not been endorsed by Afilias.)
And, theluckygeneral.com.au was being hoarded back when I registered the domain name. Ironically, I just checked and mysteriously it is now available!
(Laurie Patton is a member of auDA and the former CEO/Executive Director of Internet Australia. He is currently advising Afilias Australia, the company that took over the management of the .au registry for auDA from 1 July 2018. However, the views expressed here are his own and have not been endorsed by Afilias.)
And, theluckygeneral.com.au was being hoarded back when I registered the domain name. Ironically, I just checked and mysteriously it is now available!
Suzabro
Administrator
Hi Anthony, I've doubled this to 20,000.
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
I’d my entire piece available? It looks like it has been condensed.
findtim
Top Contributor
no worries andrew, i bought this up to the chair when the first lucky general email went out as i was unaware at the time that it could happen and i got 2 very quick complaints from members, apparently it does say it can be done somewhere but sorry i just don't have time right now to find it for you however i did ask the question and was told it can be done.
tim
Laurie Patton
Regular Member
So, did you complain when The Grumpies acquired the auDA member list and emailed everyone (including me)? Again today!
Drop.com.au
Top Contributor
Sorry I forgot to introduce myself earlier, my full name is Anthony Peake and my views are my own too. I do work/have worked for auDA accredited registrars since 2007. I was once employed alongside George Pongas at a registrar before he worked for Neustar. I have never been employed by Adrian Kinderis but he has bought me a beer once or twice and then ignored me at registrar functions. I have shared a beer and my opinions with Josh Rowe once, I have never met Paul Szyndler nor Jim Stewart.
Here is what I said back then "In recent discussions with auDA I am even more unsure of the future as it seems to me that the Registry Transformation Project and the Policy Review Project are not correctly aligned. Based on my experience as a project manager this will result in either further delays, increased costs or decreased quality." auDA did not want to listen then and they are still not listening now. So I'll say it again in my opinion "the PRP and the RTP" are being run in the wrong order. My point back then was that it is impossible to migrate the registry without editing the policies. Here we are almost 12 months later and we have a Registry which is not compliant with the Published Policies. We have about 7 of the 33 policies edited on 1 July 2018 without a historical record being maintained and without the corresponding PDFs being edited and these are the same policies the PRP are supposed to be working on. Lawyers and scholars in the future are going to have a real challenge working out what happened and which policies are applicable today.
Operational issues tend to start to appear only after deliberate actions are taken to ignore sound advise from within the industry, here are some examples.
1) whois-check being offline is a serious operational issue for the 5,000 odd resellers out there who cannot provision new domains.
2) whois moving around is an operational issue for anyone selling, buying, brokering, renewing or transferring a domain name.
3) Domain Password Recovery is both a fundamental right of .au registrants but it is also operationally required by thousands of resellers who are now going online and pointing fingers at Registrars.
There is at least one registrar on record for months prior to go live campaigning to get those items delivered and tested before go live, yet here we are. Do I have a right to throw a tantrum and shout about registrars not being listened to?
Everyone should be allowed to have their say right?
develop and implement domain name policy
license 2LD registry operators
accredit and license registrars
implement consumer safeguards
facilitate .au Dispute Resolution Policy
represent .au at ICANN and other international fora
technical management of the .au zone file
manage and maintain a secure and stable Domain Name System
I am pretty sure the Grumpier's, Adrian's and Domainers of this industry could make a list 6 pages long of how auDA is not doing these things while is it busy focusing on its governance processes. I am also pretty sure domainers are customers and not people who inherently have a conflict of interest.
Back in Dec 2017, there where no Registrars on the board (first time in 16 years apparently)
The majority of Registrars (by count and by domains under management) wrote to the board concerned about not being consulted and asking to send a representative to talk to the board.
How would you expect independent board members to react?
With regards to holding a board accountable, I don't really care about them losing their positions over this, they have only been there a few months and board members have been falling like flies ever since the new regime began anyway. Most "domainers" and "registrars" have been doing this for more than a decade and we will be here long after they are gone.
Aug 2017 was a very interesting month in this industry and a turning point for me. After my protest the Registrar Liaison Officer left auDA without explanation, looking back into the minutes tonight I see that both her and the CEO had to be excluded by the board for a number of meetings and in camera sessions that month before he returned and she disappeared.
If what you say is true about us all needing to tow the line because the Government wants to move away from the "many with experience" to the "few with power" then this should be over swiftly and I'll be losing my job in the morning. I just wish that pesky Government would say it to me directly.
- Anthony
I am glad that you also consider the legalities, policies and controls to be an important part of our namespace. I take them very seriously. So seriously in fact that I shut down my previous company for a week in Aug 2017 to protest against auDA not listening.
Here is what I said back then "In recent discussions with auDA I am even more unsure of the future as it seems to me that the Registry Transformation Project and the Policy Review Project are not correctly aligned. Based on my experience as a project manager this will result in either further delays, increased costs or decreased quality." auDA did not want to listen then and they are still not listening now. So I'll say it again in my opinion "the PRP and the RTP" are being run in the wrong order. My point back then was that it is impossible to migrate the registry without editing the policies. Here we are almost 12 months later and we have a Registry which is not compliant with the Published Policies. We have about 7 of the 33 policies edited on 1 July 2018 without a historical record being maintained and without the corresponding PDFs being edited and these are the same policies the PRP are supposed to be working on. Lawyers and scholars in the future are going to have a real challenge working out what happened and which policies are applicable today.
Operational issues tend to start to appear only after deliberate actions are taken to ignore sound advise from within the industry, here are some examples.
1) whois-check being offline is a serious operational issue for the 5,000 odd resellers out there who cannot provision new domains.
2) whois moving around is an operational issue for anyone selling, buying, brokering, renewing or transferring a domain name.
3) Domain Password Recovery is both a fundamental right of .au registrants but it is also operationally required by thousands of resellers who are now going online and pointing fingers at Registrars.
There is at least one registrar on record for months prior to go live campaigning to get those items delivered and tested before go live, yet here we are. Do I have a right to throw a tantrum and shout about registrars not being listened to?
I am probably just being pedantic here, but technically qualified people getting angry when "their views are not considered" is a good thing... it stops critical infrastructure from getting broken... it keeps the online economy running. I do agree with you that when we don't agree with the outcome "ie we are one of Chris' losers" we should shut up once we have had our say.
Everyone should be allowed to have their say right?
I honestly don't know much about corporate governance principles. All I know is that in the first 10 years as a member I got consulted on policy changes and I participated in panels which made recommendations which the board voted on and then the CEO oversaw the implementation of. It was all published online and if the ship was going to turn 1 degree to starboard we knew about it months in advance. In the last two years things feel very different. I was told that this is "what the government wants" so who am I to disagree right? I once actually asked the Government if that is true and they would not commit one way or the other. So the way I see it this is one day going to end up in court or it will go down as a non-event for normal people like Y2K, either way it will end up making an interesting book.
You are probably right, these are the final thrashings of people being ejected from the industry. I think the Grumpier campaign will fail as far as ejecting anyone significant. This battle was lost a long long time ago. All auDA has to do is ride out the storm. Of course there will be a time of reflection for us all in the future, for me I will be looking back on this time and wondering if it is even noticeable that Josh, Paul and Jim are gone (or even myself) and if I look at it honestly I am about as irreplaceable as a fist in a bucket of water. Once the ripples subside no one will even notice.
I am not experienced when it comes to other organisations so I cannot comment on their roles. With regards to responsibilities auDA has the following on their website.
develop and implement domain name policy
license 2LD registry operators
accredit and license registrars
implement consumer safeguards
facilitate .au Dispute Resolution Policy
represent .au at ICANN and other international fora
technical management of the .au zone file
manage and maintain a secure and stable Domain Name System
I am pretty sure the Grumpier's, Adrian's and Domainers of this industry could make a list 6 pages long of how auDA is not doing these things while is it busy focusing on its governance processes. I am also pretty sure domainers are customers and not people who inherently have a conflict of interest.
I like the idea of independent board members... here is a theoretical question for you.
Back in Dec 2017, there where no Registrars on the board (first time in 16 years apparently)
The majority of Registrars (by count and by domains under management) wrote to the board concerned about not being consulted and asking to send a representative to talk to the board.
How would you expect independent board members to react?
When things go horribly wrong the internet picks up the slack. We break our backs to keep everything upright, we literally believe that there are more important things than proving a point, just ask saleezy.com.au and quantum web.
With regards to holding a board accountable, I don't really care about them losing their positions over this, they have only been there a few months and board members have been falling like flies ever since the new regime began anyway. Most "domainers" and "registrars" have been doing this for more than a decade and we will be here long after they are gone.
Aug 2017 was a very interesting month in this industry and a turning point for me. After my protest the Registrar Liaison Officer left auDA without explanation, looking back into the minutes tonight I see that both her and the CEO had to be excluded by the board for a number of meetings and in camera sessions that month before he returned and she disappeared.
It is easy to dismiss Adrian, the Grumpiers and angry Domainers in general on the face of their rhetoric and if you believe the stories spread online about them. If you take the time to dissect their complaints fully you will find that there are a bunch of them which have already been addressed (like the lottery model of domain allocation) but the question does beg asking "Why are so many people from diverse backgrounds angry at the same time?" It was once publicly put to the CEO at an AGM that he has "a unique ability to make Supply and Demand angry at the same time." in hindsight now I am starting to understand how the balance of control had started to shift and we all started to feel the bite of the bit as the CEO started the process of breaking us all into the new regime.
If what you say is true about us all needing to tow the line because the Government wants to move away from the "many with experience" to the "few with power" then this should be over swiftly and I'll be losing my job in the morning. I just wish that pesky Government would say it to me directly.
- Anthony
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Last edited:
Suzabro
Administrator
Hi Laurie, content that is quoted gets put in a click to expand box. We welcome members quoting external content, as long it's not repetitive and follows the rules. This is not related to your post, just general information for everyone posting on this thread.
