This Is Embarrassing auDA
- Thread starter neddy
- Start date
snoopy
Top Contributor
I think the latest stuff, minutes, code of conduct is directors who don't like criticism & feel that their positions are justified, but they don't have a clear view of public perception. e.g. they might get advice that the minute publication isn't necessary, but directors should carefully consider how that would be perceived, rather than just considering their own justifications.
A lot of AUDA directors seem to go in under the under the motivation of "draining the swamp" and instead they just become part of an even bigger swamp.
snoopy
Top Contributor
Just with those, the first 3 are policy/regulatory bodies, so he is saying, "we should follow ASX best practices", i.e. the best practices applicable to ASX listed companies.
The problem is that AUDA just follows those rules when it suits them. They'll apply it to the minutes (to remove information) and won't apply it is regards to many other issues such as disclosure of remuneration and independence of directors. In my view they have an agenda of limiting the information going to members and they are simply looking for ways of justifying that.
Just as an example of AUDA clearly not following good corporate governance,
http://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf
I don't believe it is possible for an demand side director to become "independent" through a board vote and call that "good corporate governance".
neddy
Top Contributor
This is also embarrassing ...
I've done an article today on Domainer comparing the differences between auDA and its international counterparts - in particular Canada (CIRA).
They have a bigger population than Australia, but slightly less domain names registered. As at today (according to AusRegistry), we have around 3,122,000 domains – Canada has approximately 2,615,000. So comparable in my opinion.
But their level of interaction and communication with members is staggering compared to auDA's.
As I write in my conclusion:
I've done an article today on Domainer comparing the differences between auDA and its international counterparts - in particular Canada (CIRA).
They have a bigger population than Australia, but slightly less domain names registered. As at today (according to AusRegistry), we have around 3,122,000 domains – Canada has approximately 2,615,000. So comparable in my opinion.
But their level of interaction and communication with members is staggering compared to auDA's.
As I write in my conclusion:
"Really simple auDA. Please get your act together – communication and transparency with members is paramount. The Canadians (and ICANN, UK and NZ) have shown you the way.
“Hiding” past history invites ridicule. And one email newsletter per month (with no ability for members to answer back or ask questions) is simply inadequate in this day and age.
If the CEO can’t make this happen properly despite his promises, then he should really consider his position. In my opinion of course."
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Ned, do you really think they are listening to you and that the CEO or Chair etc may resign from their positions?
Very few people if any leave the auDA gravy train voluntarily once they have a first class ticket on board.
A few directors may stand down and resign.Recently I think it is obvious to see they want to disassociate their reputations from auDA but also In most cases their auDA gravy train ticket is not in the auDA first class VIP cabin others enjoy the benefits and status of.
It was not long ago the new auDA CEO told me the old "auDA CEO flew First Class and stayed at 6 star hotels". That certainly sets a high standard for a "not for profit" Government "contractor" of which auDA is.
The only reason auDA is deleting material is they must have something or many things to hide. Their risk analysis probably showed taking it down is better than it being found and pursued by someone or even by government perhaps.
Compare auDA with CIRA and you see a massive difference. auDA has gone backwards and I doubt it will ever recover from this. Certainly the way auDA management and the auDA board is acting is not helping their own reputations professionally.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Even major industry Supply Registrars / Resellers are now speaking out!
ONLYDOMAINS / INSTRA
"Announcements
auDA’s Daily Calamity Update: CEO Defends Lack of Accountability and Transparency
It’s turning out to be an almost daily update on the calamities of auDA, the .au regulatory and policy body. It could be amusing, and frustrating for those involved, if it weren’t that auDA was a key player in such a critical piece of Australia’s infrastructure. Today’s update is that they claim they should be compared to the ABC, Australia’s version of the BBC, and the CSIRO, Australia’s peak scientific body.
“Huh?” I hear you ask. Well me too. The man behind Domainer.com.au, Ned O’Meara, wrote to auDA’s CEO Cameron Boardman questioning the recent disappearance of key documents, and questioning the commitment to improving communication and transparency as outlined at the 2016 annual general meeting last November.
Both Stuart Benjamin, auDA Chair, and Boardman had promised that communication and transparency would improve.
auDA CEO Cameron Boardman
While some of the documents, such as annual reports, have returned with “human error” blamed, there are still documents missing. In an obvious thumb of the nose at the commitment to accountability and transparency, the Board resolved at its 13 February board meeting to “cease publishing Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes and remove historical Board Meeting documents from the public website in order to comply with good governance practices.”
One could easily ask how good governance can come about when a member driven organisation purposely make it hard to find out what is going on?
And then the comparison by Boardman of auDA to 2 of Australia’s leading public sector corporations – the ABC and CSIRO. But hang on a minute. auDA is not a public sector organisation. It’s a not for profit with members. While there are no doubt like organisations in Australia, none have such a direct impact on critical infrastructure like auDA does. Comparisons with other member-driven country code top level domains (ccTLDs) would be more accurate."
ONLYDOMAINS / INSTRA
"Announcements
auDA’s Daily Calamity Update: CEO Defends Lack of Accountability and Transparency
It’s turning out to be an almost daily update on the calamities of auDA, the .au regulatory and policy body. It could be amusing, and frustrating for those involved, if it weren’t that auDA was a key player in such a critical piece of Australia’s infrastructure. Today’s update is that they claim they should be compared to the ABC, Australia’s version of the BBC, and the CSIRO, Australia’s peak scientific body.
“Huh?” I hear you ask. Well me too. The man behind Domainer.com.au, Ned O’Meara, wrote to auDA’s CEO Cameron Boardman questioning the recent disappearance of key documents, and questioning the commitment to improving communication and transparency as outlined at the 2016 annual general meeting last November.
Both Stuart Benjamin, auDA Chair, and Boardman had promised that communication and transparency would improve.
auDA CEO Cameron Boardman
While some of the documents, such as annual reports, have returned with “human error” blamed, there are still documents missing. In an obvious thumb of the nose at the commitment to accountability and transparency, the Board resolved at its 13 February board meeting to “cease publishing Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes and remove historical Board Meeting documents from the public website in order to comply with good governance practices.”
One could easily ask how good governance can come about when a member driven organisation purposely make it hard to find out what is going on?
And then the comparison by Boardman of auDA to 2 of Australia’s leading public sector corporations – the ABC and CSIRO. But hang on a minute. auDA is not a public sector organisation. It’s a not for profit with members. While there are no doubt like organisations in Australia, none have such a direct impact on critical infrastructure like auDA does. Comparisons with other member-driven country code top level domains (ccTLDs) would be more accurate."
snoopy
Top Contributor
I think that is what many would assume, for what other reason would AUDA take down already released documents?
The only other reason I can think of is to try and reduce criticism by making it difficult for AUDA members to access information.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
ONLYDOMAINS / INSTRA
AuDA today confirmed it is going ahead with the building and operation of a dedicated .au registry. To begin the .au policy and regulatory body is, as an initial scoping exercise, releasing a Request for Expressions of Interest for the Registry Transformation Project.
The .au registry is currently operated by AusRegistry, now owned by Neustar, who have operated it since 2002, seeing registrations grow from 307,000 to the current 3.115 million. During that period while AusRegistry operated the registry auDA handled the policy and regulatory side of the .au country code top level domain (ccTLD).
The controversial decision goes against the organisation’s constitution and its own Industry Advisory panels made of registrars and industry insiders. Industry Advisory panels in 2008 and again in 2012 recommended that the existing setup of auDA as the policy and regulatory body and a separate registry should be retained.
The 2012 Industry Advisory Panel recommendations to the auDA Board included Recommendation 1A that reads:
a) the competitive registry model should be retained;
b) auDA should initiate renegotiations with AusRegistry to extend contractual arrangements for 2, 3 or 4 years;
c) auDA should seek stakeholder input on relevant negotiating factors prior to the renegotiations with AusRegistry;
d) if renegotiations with AusRegistry fail, auDA should proceed to conduct a formal RFT process; and
e) the auDA Board should publicly commit to undertaking a formal RFT process once the renegotiated registry agreement expires.
Likewise in 2008, the panel recommended “that the existing competitive registry model should be retained with future licence terms to be increased from the current 4 year licence term to either a 6 or 8 year licence term” and “that auDA negotiates with the current registry operator with a view to extending the current registry licence term by up to 4 years.”
Further, auDA’s constitution says Advisory Panels will be used to develop policy recommendations, but the decision to operate the registry has come about before any consultation.
A meeting with registrars was held early last week to discuss the changes. Sources indicate there is much uneasiness with auDA’s decisions.
Further to the ongoing madness the current leadership group has overseen key documents deleted from its website including annual reports, some of which have been reinstated. And last week auDA’s Director Technology, Security and Strategy, Rachael Falk, suddenly departed after only 8 months with insiders saying she was under untenable pressures from senior management with the CEO calling into question her professionalism. While the auDA announcement states Falk is leaving at the end of June, industry sources say she is not going back. Falk was appointed with much fanfare last October with glowing comments by the auDA Chair and CEO.
The EoI documents are now available for download on auDA’s Registry Transformation Project website. Expressions of Interest are due 26 June.
No comment was sought from auDA as they don’t discuss issues with industry blogs as they’re not considered part of the media and have previously refused to comment.
* Disclaimer: the writer was an auDA Board member (2005 to 2007), served on 3 auDA Names Policy Panels (2007, 2010 and 2015), was a supplier to auDA for 14 years and is now a supplier to AusRegistry proving online media monitoring services and contributing to the Behind the Dot magazine."
"Announcements
The Madness Continues As auDA Defies Own Constitution and Industry Advice While Seeking Registry EoI
The Madness Continues As auDA Defies Own Constitution and Industry Advice While Seeking Registry EoI
AuDA today confirmed it is going ahead with the building and operation of a dedicated .au registry. To begin the .au policy and regulatory body is, as an initial scoping exercise, releasing a Request for Expressions of Interest for the Registry Transformation Project.
The .au registry is currently operated by AusRegistry, now owned by Neustar, who have operated it since 2002, seeing registrations grow from 307,000 to the current 3.115 million. During that period while AusRegistry operated the registry auDA handled the policy and regulatory side of the .au country code top level domain (ccTLD).
The controversial decision goes against the organisation’s constitution and its own Industry Advisory panels made of registrars and industry insiders. Industry Advisory panels in 2008 and again in 2012 recommended that the existing setup of auDA as the policy and regulatory body and a separate registry should be retained.
The 2012 Industry Advisory Panel recommendations to the auDA Board included Recommendation 1A that reads:
a) the competitive registry model should be retained;
b) auDA should initiate renegotiations with AusRegistry to extend contractual arrangements for 2, 3 or 4 years;
c) auDA should seek stakeholder input on relevant negotiating factors prior to the renegotiations with AusRegistry;
d) if renegotiations with AusRegistry fail, auDA should proceed to conduct a formal RFT process; and
e) the auDA Board should publicly commit to undertaking a formal RFT process once the renegotiated registry agreement expires.
Likewise in 2008, the panel recommended “that the existing competitive registry model should be retained with future licence terms to be increased from the current 4 year licence term to either a 6 or 8 year licence term” and “that auDA negotiates with the current registry operator with a view to extending the current registry licence term by up to 4 years.”
Further, auDA’s constitution says Advisory Panels will be used to develop policy recommendations, but the decision to operate the registry has come about before any consultation.
A meeting with registrars was held early last week to discuss the changes. Sources indicate there is much uneasiness with auDA’s decisions.
Further to the ongoing madness the current leadership group has overseen key documents deleted from its website including annual reports, some of which have been reinstated. And last week auDA’s Director Technology, Security and Strategy, Rachael Falk, suddenly departed after only 8 months with insiders saying she was under untenable pressures from senior management with the CEO calling into question her professionalism. While the auDA announcement states Falk is leaving at the end of June, industry sources say she is not going back. Falk was appointed with much fanfare last October with glowing comments by the auDA Chair and CEO.
The EoI documents are now available for download on auDA’s Registry Transformation Project website. Expressions of Interest are due 26 June.
No comment was sought from auDA as they don’t discuss issues with industry blogs as they’re not considered part of the media and have previously refused to comment.
* Disclaimer: the writer was an auDA Board member (2005 to 2007), served on 3 auDA Names Policy Panels (2007, 2010 and 2015), was a supplier to auDA for 14 years and is now a supplier to AusRegistry proving online media monitoring services and contributing to the Behind the Dot magazine."
DomainNames
Top Contributor
ONLY DOMAINS / INSTRA
"Announcements
Chaos Reigns At auDA As Security Head Suddenly Departs
Appointed amid much fanfare around October last year, auDA’s Director Technology, Security and Strategy, Rachael Falk, has suddenly departed 8 months later. auDA, the .au policy and regulatory body, is..."
Chaos Reigns At auDA As Security Head Suddenly Departs
Appointed amid much fanfare around October last year, auDA’s Director Technology, Security and Strategy, Rachael Falk, has suddenly departed 8 months later. auDA, the .au policy and regulatory body, is..."
Shane
Top Contributor
Well said Andrew. I've just renewed my membership.
neddy
Top Contributor
On Domainer today, I queried the legality of auDA's Code of Conduct - particularly point 4, which deals with suspension and revocation of membership.
Lo and behold, out comes a members newsletter this afternoon with this link to an explanation on the "Member Code of Conduct". It is dated today - it almost looks like crisis management - making stuff up as they go along!
Amongst other things, they state (bolding is mine):
Let's see the legal advice Mr Boardman - love to know how you get around this part of the Constitution:
Lo and behold, out comes a members newsletter this afternoon with this link to an explanation on the "Member Code of Conduct". It is dated today - it almost looks like crisis management - making stuff up as they go along!
Amongst other things, they state (bolding is mine):
"Accordingly the Code of Conduct was developed to assist this goal, with comprehensive legal advice regarding the Code’s constitutionality received."
Let's see the legal advice Mr Boardman - love to know how you get around this part of the Constitution:
29 BY-LAWS
The Board has the power to make, vary and repeal by-laws from time to time for the proper conduct and management of auDA and such by-laws are binding on all Members. A resolution of the Board to make, vary or repeal by-laws must subsequently be ratified by a special resolution of Members.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Good luck with them changing. It appears no matter how wrong they are they will not listen until someone challenges it properly. How?
I also want to see the report of their Europe junket posted out to all members with full disclosures of costs, class of travel, a report on why attendance was needed.. Why not use the Internet and Skype in?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
auDA Farm?
neddy
Top Contributor
Ian, here you go:
- auDA continues to make decisions that affect members detrimentally. They impose their will unilaterally (as if it is a fiefdom), yet auDA is supposed to be a membership organization.
- On one day in November 2016, Stuart Benjamin went from being an elected Demand Class Member / Chairman to an Independent Director / Chairman without reference to the Members or a special resolution of members. Yet he "officially" remained as a Demand Class member until April (when I wrote an article about it).
- auDA breaks promises regarding communication and transparency that the Chair and CEO committed to at the AGM. Their assurances are on audio.
- auDA suddenly removed all previous Board Minutes; Agendas; Reports etc from their website. They explained this by saying that this is the new gold standard for transparency. There is now an FOI request in to get these.
- auDA now compares themselves to the ABC and CSIRO, rather than their peer internet organizations (ICANN, NZ. UK, Canada).
- auDA treats our elected Director (Tim) like a pariah in many regards.
- auDA continues to have staff exodus at an alarming rate for a small membership organization. Some have been terminated; some have left of their own accord. Independent Directors have also been casualties.
- auDA now seeks to stifle members from having a proper say by imposing a Membership Code of Conduct which contains provisions that are clearly in contravention of the Constitution. Penalties include suspension or revocation of membership (a star chamber approach).
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
- auDA are trying to ram through direct registrations without full debate, explanation to all stakeholders and rely on BS surveys for justification even with serious opposition from their own panel.
- auDA entering into direct consultation with aUSregistry without going to open tender.
- auDA membership issues where some parties are both supply and demand.
Community sponsors
