is auDA.org.au abusing it's power?
- Thread starter DomainNames
- Start date
Scott.L
Top Contributor
DomainNames
Top Contributor
That's a very good find...
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Off to a flying start:
Government Review [New Terms of Endorsement]
Day 31 since New Terms were laid down
Core functions The .au domain administrator will undertake the following core functions:
ensure stable, secure and reliable operation of the .au domain space
Let’s rig the system for our new mates with deep pockets – no-one is gonna know….
respond quickly to matters that compromise DNS security
Whoops, that was a mistake – they found out…Take it down, Take it down.
promote principles of competition, fair trading and consumer protection
look, it’s been 2 years, Anyone know WTF we should do about Direct Registrations?
operate as a fully self-funding and not-for-profit organisation
Ok, let’s keep the cash flowing in – what about the foundation and our community obligations to support this industry. She’ll be right, we’ll just say we are going to do it, and in 3 years’ time, we’ll hold a cheap event and serve up cordial and cookies and talk crap for 3 hours. Besides, at this rate of failure we're going to need every penny to fight lawsuits.
actively participate in national and international technical and policy namespace fora to ensure that Australia’s interests are represented and to identify trends and developments relevant to the administration of the .au namespace
Does anyone have any actual consumer demand data for direct registrations, in fact..do we have anyone to interpret any of this data? Nope, Ok…someone get Delloit on the phone to concoct another summary.
establish appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.
OMG…its happening AGAIN. the Members...the Members...
Government Review [New Terms of Endorsement]
Day 31 since New Terms were laid down
Core functions The .au domain administrator will undertake the following core functions:
ensure stable, secure and reliable operation of the .au domain space
Let’s rig the system for our new mates with deep pockets – no-one is gonna know….
respond quickly to matters that compromise DNS security
Whoops, that was a mistake – they found out…Take it down, Take it down.
promote principles of competition, fair trading and consumer protection
look, it’s been 2 years, Anyone know WTF we should do about Direct Registrations?
operate as a fully self-funding and not-for-profit organisation
Ok, let’s keep the cash flowing in – what about the foundation and our community obligations to support this industry. She’ll be right, we’ll just say we are going to do it, and in 3 years’ time, we’ll hold a cheap event and serve up cordial and cookies and talk crap for 3 hours. Besides, at this rate of failure we're going to need every penny to fight lawsuits.
actively participate in national and international technical and policy namespace fora to ensure that Australia’s interests are represented and to identify trends and developments relevant to the administration of the .au namespace
Does anyone have any actual consumer demand data for direct registrations, in fact..do we have anyone to interpret any of this data? Nope, Ok…someone get Delloit on the phone to concoct another summary.
establish appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.
OMG…its happening AGAIN. the Members...the Members...
DomainNames
Top Contributor
CMWG is not a "Board meeting" , it is also run by the auDA CEO not the "Board"
I suggest Government DoCA and also ACMA should attend all auDA meetings, panels, committees, SGM, side meetings and even have DoCA / ACMA staff placed inside the auDA office to improve communications and workflow / sharing of information and progress to meet and exceed the minimum 29 initial Government suggestions.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
CMWG is not a "Board meeting" , it is also run by the auDA CEO not the "Board"
I suggest Government DoCA and also ACMA should attend all auDA meetings, panels, committees, SGM, side meetings and even have DoCA / ACMA staff placed inside the auDA office to improve communications and workflow / sharing of information and progress to meet and exceed the minimum 29 initial Government suggestions.
(CMWG)
I guess it wasn’t important enough to include the Boards decision to create the CMWG in their 11th May public minutes?
CMWG is not a "Board meeting" , it is also run by the auDA CEO not the "Board"
the CMWG reports to the Board and the Board will make a decision? Right? in addition, the CEO has a very influential role within the CMWG and is also party to the Board when it convenes.
.
Last edited:
Scott.L
Top Contributor
...by proxy, the CMWG will be persuaded by the Board through the CEO and we all know the CEO will guide the percepts of the Board.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
I have already expressed my concern the CMWG is being far too limited to being told it is to mostly discuss and come up with proposals for changing the auDA membership, we are not to go over the other 28 points it seems.
I and many other specifically thought the CMWG would have the right to go over each of the 29 points and also to invite any stakeholder to submit questions, solutions feedback on them to the CMWG via an email address or online portal/ forum.
The CMWG have been advised we are not restricted and are able to seek stakeholder input, feedback and engagement.
I and many other specifically thought the CMWG would have the right to go over each of the 29 points and also to invite any stakeholder to submit questions, solutions feedback on them to the CMWG via an email address or online portal/ forum.
The CMWG have been advised we are not restricted and are able to seek stakeholder input, feedback and engagement.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Ok, so 16 people are to figure out a consultation model that engages members about what kind of membership model to choose.
But, in doing so, the CMWG is restricted from discussing the other 28 recommendations with the target audience. [Members]
if this is correct [and i believe you], Do you see how they have you by the balls. These recommendations [all 29] are ALL necessary to construct an effect membership model. if this process is restricted then they have already begun to shape percepts.
If you want a faster car - You can’t expect to modify one part of a car without modifying the next.
Last edited:
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
I just hope the government doesn't step in before we get our SGM.
Jimboot
Top Contributor
Unfortunately they have done major damage to the AU namespace. If the CEO can make decisions like this on the fly without policy & transparency, it's too unstable to do business in like most oligarchies. We are now planning for the worse and telling our clients to do the same.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
auDA is Hijacked.
The company [auDA] was originally set up by volunteers who became its members for the mutual benefit of its membership. Stakeholders with an interest in the DNS were encouraged to be members, and together out of this pool of people Directors were elected for the purpose of overseeing the DNS and its direction. A constant feedback loop of information from the membership to the Board accommodated decision making. It worked and it was stable [even if it had some failings]
In recent years, a new influence has consequently taken hold; pitting supply against demand [the two great monopolies] in an attempt to break down industry relationships and create discourse. This ancient political practice is not a new idea. [us against them] Those influenced by this idea have participated in it to separate auDA management from its members [even those who do not yet see they are participants]. Breaking down this original company model in order to break away from membership accountability and industry engagement. In doing so, the direction of auDA can be guided by a few who become its beneficiaries.
The members aware of this tactic are fighting against it. But, as we can already see from the Government Review and its Recommendations, we have already lost ground. The members should/must reject both auDA’s and the Governments suggestion to increase independent representation. This is a foreign concept from the original model that established the company, and its subtle foothold has already been established in such a short time and right under our noses as acceptable. Its not.
Who the Hell believes independent representation is more proficient in managing the DNS over those who are industry participants? Yes, conflicts of interest are always lurking, but that’s why we have laws to prohibit against it. Independent representation doesn’t mean the independent is not encouraged by bribes [monetary, political, reputational] and in my opinion, its worse, its easier to hide conflicts of interest from a prying eye under the pretense of independent representation and therefore it is more tempting. Why increase independent representation and then increase independent remuneration? if not to capture it for your mates.
Don’t be fooled by the political correctness; ‘modernization’, ‘contemporary upgrade’, 'progressive' it’s just wool pulled over your eyes to keep everyone from seeing the real plan.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
…if you hear people whisper ‘I’m just entertaining a conspiracy theory’ then you know who its participants are.
The company [auDA] was originally set up by volunteers who became its members for the mutual benefit of its membership. Stakeholders with an interest in the DNS were encouraged to be members, and together out of this pool of people Directors were elected for the purpose of overseeing the DNS and its direction. A constant feedback loop of information from the membership to the Board accommodated decision making. It worked and it was stable [even if it had some failings]
In recent years, a new influence has consequently taken hold; pitting supply against demand [the two great monopolies] in an attempt to break down industry relationships and create discourse. This ancient political practice is not a new idea. [us against them] Those influenced by this idea have participated in it to separate auDA management from its members [even those who do not yet see they are participants]. Breaking down this original company model in order to break away from membership accountability and industry engagement. In doing so, the direction of auDA can be guided by a few who become its beneficiaries.
The members aware of this tactic are fighting against it. But, as we can already see from the Government Review and its Recommendations, we have already lost ground. The members should/must reject both auDA’s and the Governments suggestion to increase independent representation. This is a foreign concept from the original model that established the company, and its subtle foothold has already been established in such a short time and right under our noses as acceptable. Its not.
Who the Hell believes independent representation is more proficient in managing the DNS over those who are industry participants? Yes, conflicts of interest are always lurking, but that’s why we have laws to prohibit against it. Independent representation doesn’t mean the independent is not encouraged by bribes [monetary, political, reputational] and in my opinion, its worse, its easier to hide conflicts of interest from a prying eye under the pretense of independent representation and therefore it is more tempting. Why increase independent representation and then increase independent remuneration? if not to capture it for your mates.
Don’t be fooled by the political correctness; ‘modernization’, ‘contemporary upgrade’, 'progressive' it’s just wool pulled over your eyes to keep everyone from seeing the real plan.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
…if you hear people whisper ‘I’m just entertaining a conspiracy theory’ then you know who its participants are.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Taken from - Government Review Implementation Plan
BULLSHIT
According to the published minutes - A government Observer has not been present at any board meeting since 12th December 2017
PROOF:
December 18, 2017
February 13th, 2018
February 15th, 2018
March 26th, 2018
April 20th, 2018
May 11th, 2018
“How can we ever trust anything auDA says?” auDA is now lying to the Government.
BULLSHIT
According to the published minutes - A government Observer has not been present at any board meeting since 12th December 2017
PROOF:
December 18, 2017
February 13th, 2018
February 15th, 2018
March 26th, 2018
April 20th, 2018
May 11th, 2018
“How can we ever trust anything auDA says?” auDA is now lying to the Government.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Why have the government not been going is also of concern...?
Scott.L
Top Contributor
I’ve decide to respond to my own post because it deserves more attention than the conclusion previously drawn [auDA is lying]
As pointed out by Jim, the word ‘accommodated’ appears to be the trigger word within the context of their statement, and the meaning of “has fully accommodated” reinforces the notion that a Government Observer has attended all Board meetings. However, the minutes prove the Government Observer has not attended board meetings for 6 months straight.
Dictionary:
Accommodate:
past tense: accommodated;
past participle: accommodated;
In my understanding; auDA’s statement suggests a Government Observer attended all previous Board meetings to date [was, fully accommodated] the statement gives the sense of, assuring the Minister that the Government Observer received hospitable accompaniment in all previous board meetings. Accordingly, the status of the Government Observer is given due respect, appropriately situated in relation to the Board. And, Board meetings are organised in accordance with 19.8 of the company constitution [giving due notice]. Now that’s how I read this statement.
But, there’s more to this statement than meets the eye.
On the flip side of this coin, it could be argued that auDA is suggesting in the same statement; Concomitantly, a seat is provided to accommodate the commonwealth representative at board meetings, whether filled or not, as per 19.8 of the company constitution. [19.8 ‘may attend’]
As a side note:
auDA did not reference the correct constitutional clause in their statement.
19.7 refers to CASUAL VACANCIES: The correct clause is 19.8
In my opinion, the innuendo drifting from their statement reflects the attitude of 19.8;
Attitude - It’s up to the Department to decide to attend meetings.
Which is not what the Government has previously declared they will do. Since the establishment of auDA, a commitment by the Government to have oversight [not involvement] over Board Decisions is very clearly documented in their communication with auDA, regardless whether they want to observe it or not.
Senator Alston’s letter to Chris Disspain 4th July 2001
A representative from NOIE attends all auDA Board meetings as an observer and maintains a close working relationship with the auDA Board and its administrative staff.
Government review – Terms of Endorsement, April 2018
Ensure that a senior officer from the Department is included in all relevant auDA governance processes, including, but not limited to, non-voting observer status at board meetings for all decisions.
AuDA constitution;
19.8 Observer appointed by the Commonwealth
A representative of the Commonwealth of Australia may attend any meeting of the Board of the Company as an observer. The Company Secretary shall give due notice of each Board meeting to the office of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth as notified to the Company from time to time.
Here’s the twist;
Government observer attendance at board meetings has been twisted by the words “may attend” within 19.8 of the auDA constitution – This word ‘may’ is inconsistent with the Governments documented commitment to observe the decision-making process of ALL Board meetings. However, 19.8 also gives the Government an excuse to be excused from being an observer, if thing goes bad. Observation could Elicit consent to a Board decision, placing the government as an accomplice in that decision. And, in my opinion, this could be the very reason the Government is not attending board meetings as an observer.
So, is auDA telling a porky pie in their statement? In my opinion, Yes. They may not want to admit it because it appears they have no choice. The statement contains the intent to confuse the audience into believing the Government observer has attended all prior board meetings by using the word ‘accommodated’ whilst at the same time it seeks to defend the governments absenteeism via 19.8 [ "may attend'] which means, not all board meetings are observed by a Government representative, and this becomes a hot potato, because 19.8 is inconsistent with the Governments own documented commitment to auDA.
This is why the constitution requires serious and immediate analysis in relation to agreements outside it.
It could be said; the people managing and directing auDA are bound by documents that are misaligned to various terms of agreement [ICANN, Government Endorsement, GAC] including its own constitution. auDA is not broken; it’s the documents they refer to that are driving this criticism because these documents are not synchronized into uniform interpretation [plain English] as a result, auDA is victimized by its own articles, and so are those at auDA who must follow, navigate and interpret these documents. [which could lead them unwittingly to unintended deception]
Good question. It must be asked, did auDA fulfill the requirement under 19.8?
Citation:The Company Secretary shall give due notice of each Board meeting to the office of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth as notified to the Company from time to time.
…because, the minutes do not report they have done so. Only that there was non-attendance by the Government Observer without citing apology.
Last edited:
Scott.L
Top Contributor
So how can we trust auDA has been involved in improving its relationships with the Australian Government or had regular briefings with the Dept on operational and policy issues. We can’t see it in the minutes, unless its contained in the CEO report which is completely redacted or removed from public observation. So, how can we know their interactions with the Government have been positive and constructive [beneficial to members and stakeholders], especially when we see in the minutes that the government observer isn’t attending board meetings? This non-attendance reeks of mixed messages regarding auDA’s relationship with the Government.
