WHY the 955 must go.

[Scott.L]

No Confusion here Cheyne, Supply Related Person is the Definition of a 'Legal Person' within 9.4 & 9.5 otherwise, why have the word 'Qualify' if it does not apply to 'Employees' of Supply Related Entities. (But You already know that Cheyne.) As for Tim, I care about why that happened, when as you said, 18.3 is the only other place 'Supply Related Person' is mentioned and yet, as a Sole Trader he does not conform to the definition of a Supply Related Person.

 

[ttfan]

but I am just trying to save you from wasting your time and effort .

If that's all you're trying to do, then there is no need for your continuous sarcasm and digs at people. I actually find your posts very useful, but the continuous sarcasm, belittling and digs is very annoying and distracting. I certainly appreciate that you're not the only one doing this, and some of it directed at you, but doing the same to others makes you just as bad.
Someone has to take the first step and rise above this. No offense intended, just expressing my annoyance, and hope it can be avoided in future.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Hey - does that mean if we all sign up with a registrar as resellers, we can move from Demand to Supply? Seems to be a little less crowded in Supply, and our votes would count more?

Asking for a friend.

 

[DomainNames]

Hey - does that mean if we all sign up with a registrar as resellers, we can move from Demand to Supply? Seems to be a little less crowded in Supply, and our votes would count more?

Asking for a friend.

You can actually go from auDA Demand class memberships ( personal membership and company membership ), to the very highly paid auDA CEO job !

Don't limit yourself! the current auDA CEO Cameron Boardman did it who before was an auDA demand class member personally and via his related company!

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_aud#outgoing-4446

https://www.itwire.com/strategy/832...shield-ceo-from-no-confidence-resolution.html

 

[snoopy]

Hey - does that mean if we all sign up with a registrar as resellers, we can move from Demand to Supply? Seems to be a little less crowded in Supply, and our votes would count more?

Asking for a friend.

This was actually suggested at in the government review. That perhaps domain investors should have been classed as supply.

 

[snoopy]

Seems auDA may be forced to remove some supply class members due to Scott's letter.

5.2 Appendix B: James Deck and Joe Manariti – Supply Class Directors of auDA

The auDA constitution does not require the directors elected by Supply Class Members to be themselves Supply Class Members. Rule 18.3 expressly provides that a director is not required to be a member. The only relevant restriction on director eligibility is that directors elected by Demand Class Members must not be a Supply Related Person. This does not apply to Mr Deck or Mr Manariti as directors elected by Supply Class Members.

Thank you for raising that certain auDA Supply Class Members may not be eligible for Supply Class membership by reason of AWIA being a member and/or their membership in AWIA. If:

1. (a) AWIA is an association whose membership comprises a majority of Registry Operator(s), auDA accredited Registrars or resellers appointed by auDA accredited Registrars, in the .au name space; and
   
   
2. (b) members of auDA are either:
   
   1. (i) members of AWIA; or
      
      
   2. (ii) a body corporate one of whose directors is also a director of AWIA; and
      
3. (c) those members are a "group" of related entities within the meaning of rule 9.4 of the auDA constitution,
   

only one of those members qualifies as a Supply Class Member under rule 9.4.

We will contact AWIA and other potentially affected members in order to discuss their qualification as Supply Class Members. If required, the Board will exercise its power under rule 9.11 to change the class of membership of Supply Class Members who no longer qualify for Supply Class membership. The Board will do so in consultation with the relevant members to ensure an orderly transition.

https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Boar...-Long-8-Aug-2018-with-attachment-Redacted.pdf

 

[DomainNames]

Seems auDA may be forced to remove some supply class members due to Scott's letter.



https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Boar...-Long-8-Aug-2018-with-attachment-Redacted.pdf

Does that make their past auDA membership votes and past auDA Director Board votes all Invalid?

Are they Supply Class Directors Joe Manariti and James Deck as per the apparent references in the auDA Letter in reply to Mr. Long or who are they?

 

[snoopy]

Are they Supply Class Directors Joe Manariti and James Deck as per the apparent references in the auDA Letter in reply to Mr. Long or who are they?

It seems to be suggesting that.

 

[DomainNames]

So there we have it.

BUSTED?
Invalid votes while auDA Directors?
"
5.2 Appendix B: James Deck and Joe Manariti – Supply Class Directors of auDA

The auDA constitution does not require the directors elected by Supply Class Members to be themselves Supply Class Members. Rule 18.3 expressly provides that a director is not required to be a member. The only relevant restriction on director eligibility is that directors elected by Demand Class Members must not be a Supply Related Person. This does not apply to Mr Deck or Mr Manariti as directors elected by Supply Class Members.


Thank you for raising that certain auDA Supply Class Members may not be eligible for Supply Class membership by reason of AWIA being a member and/or their membership in AWIA. If:


(a) AWIA is an association whose membership comprises a majority of Registry Operator(s), auDA accredited Registrars or resellers appointed by auDA accredited Registrars, in the .au name space; and

(b) members of auDA are either: (i) members of AWIA; or

(ii) a body corporate one of whose directors is also a director of AWIA; and

(c) those members are a "group" of related entities within the meaning of rule 9.4 of the auDA constitution,

only one of those members qualifies as a Supply Class Member under rule 9.4.

We will contact AWIA and other potentially affected members in order to discuss their qualification as Supply Class Members. If required, the Board will exercise its power under rule 9.11 to change the class of membership of Supply Class Members who no longer qualify for Supply Class membership. The Board will do so in consultation with the relevant members to ensure an orderly transition."

 

[Drop.com.au]

Does that make their past auDA membership votes and past auDA Director Board votes all Invalid?

No it does not. Quote below from the auDA constitution.
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/
24.10 Validation of Irregular Acts
All acts done by any meeting of the Directors or by a Committee or Advisory Panel or by any person acting as a Director will, even if it is later discovered that there was some defect in the appointment or continuance in office of a Director or person so acting or that they or any of them were disqualified or had vacated office or were not entitled to vote, be as valid as if every person had been duly appointed or had duly continued in office and was qualified and had continued to be a Director and had been entitled to vote.
- Anthony

 

[Drop.com.au]

This was actually suggested at in the government review. That perhaps domain investors should have been classed as supply.

Welcome to the supply (dark) side everyone seems we have more in common than you think.
Any domain investor who currently has signed a reseller agreement is automatically eligible to be a supply member and must not be a demand member until they have at least one employee as a supply member first. Once they have one supply they can then be a demand member BUT they cannot become a demand director.
Personally it looks like everyone in demand is going to have to get asked directly if they are or are not a reseller as this rule seems to be quite widely misunderstood.
- Anthony

 

[Jimboot]

Th

Personally it looks like everyone in demand is going to have to get asked directly if they are or are not a reseller as this rule seems to be quite widely misunderstood.
- Anthony

Well that could prove problematic given contact details on the current member db. Does it affect `the SGM vote?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Does this clarification affect any other current director?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Good luck asking the 955 new foreign "members". They haven't even been asked if the know what auDA does.

Have the new member protocols been published on the website yet or are they still cooking them up?

 

[joshrowe]

This is not a new requirement, here’s my declaration back in October 2007.

I opted to stick with Demand Class.

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2007/071022/

Continuous Disclosure
JR advised that he has resigned as a director and shareholder of reseller Sanctum Internet Pty Ltd.

 

[DomainNames]

Good luck asking the 955 new foreign "members". They haven't even been asked if the know what auDA does.

Have the new member protocols been published on the website yet or are they still cooking them up?

auDA will need to spend a fortune on translators.. and be prepared to work in the time zones of the Ukraine etc to contact the new foreign Supply Demand class members...

Oh.. wait maybe they can just send these overseas stacked members a letter to their employers Australian P.O. Box or their employers same email address they are all sharing.

auDA Letter to our new 955 members

"Dear foreign Supply stacked auDA Demand class member,

Please call auDA between auDA Australian business hours at your cost to validate your auDA membership and help us concoct the right voting position for you which will help us retain our jobs and Director roles at auDA.

Please provide your own translator as in Australia our native language for auDA employees is English and we do not speak Ukrainian, Gaelic, Mandarin, Cantonese or Tagalog..."​

 

[Drop.com.au]

Th

Well that could prove problematic given contact details on the current member db. Does it affect `the SGM vote?

It would potentially put a big hole in the demand class membership who voted and since it is not explicitly covered in the constitution it would probably have to be referred to the corporations act which I have not read. Most likely (ie i am guessing) if the members where acting in good faith then they would be required to move classes but their votes would not be invalidated in much the same way as a director who is later found to the invalid does not have there previous actions invalidated.

It is well known that the 995 members from within the registrars are "supply related persons" so they would not need to be asked and their memberships could be flagged right now as "not eligible to be demand class directors" unless they resign from their resellers (like Josh Rowe did 10 years ago). I would imagine that auDA will followup with emails to members to ensure they are in the right class and to ask people when paying their annual renewals in the future to double check these things.

- Anthony

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Actually the 995 have not been verified by auDA in anyway. They could be completely ficticious.

 

[DomainNames]

I would imagine that auDA will followup with emails to members to ensure they are in the right class and to ask people when paying their annual renewals in the future to double check these things.

- Anthony

You may be better off not sticking up for auDA and what has taken place in this matter...

How will auDA follow up to members to ensure they are in the right class / verify each foreign member when the majority of over 800 Supply class employees have been signed up using the same few employer email addresses and not their own email individual personal contact emails addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses?

Sending them a letter to their employers same P.O. Box also will not work... They are not receiving it individually again.

Will auDA be phoning them all individually? How? auDA does not have all of the personal phone numbers of each new stacked member.. Again an employer phone number...and the same number for hundreds of them....

_______________________________
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...g/news-story/7f7dae3e02fb8ab3aeb0679a937e4824

"Victorian Liberal Party in turmoil over claims of intimidation, branch-stacking"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_stacking

Activities commonly considered to be branch stacking include:

• Paying another person's party membership fee, with or without their knowledge.
• Recruiting members on the condition that they are then obliged to vote in a particular way.
• Recruiting members for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of a ballot within the party.
• Recruiting members who do not live at the claimed address of enrolment.
• Enrolling people on the electoral roll with false information about their identity or their address of enrolment — this may either take the form of consensual false enrolment, or of forgery.
• Organising or paying concessional rate fees for a person who is ineligible for concessional rates.
• "Cemetery voting", or using the names of dead people to vote in a party preselection.
• Offering inducements to younger or less powerful party members to engage in such behaviour.

https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/branch-stacking.11943/

 

[snoopy]

Welcome to the supply (dark) side everyone seems we have more in common than you think.
Any domain investor who currently has signed a reseller agreement is automatically eligible to be a supply member and must not be a demand member until they have at least one employee as a supply member first. Once they have one supply they can then be a demand member BUT they cannot become a demand director.
Personally it looks like everyone in demand is going to have to get asked directly if they are or are not a reseller as this rule seems to be quite widely misunderstood.
- Anthony

auDA need to get this sorted out before any election or constitutional vote. It reminds me a lot of the of the dual citizenship crisis. I think you are spot on that "Personally it looks like everyone in demand is going to have to get asked directly if they are or are not a reseller". They likely need to send out some type of questionnaire for both demand and supply members.

What % of the membership base is currently incorrectly classified? It is probably a significant %.

From the letter it sounds like auDA lawyers have pinpointed other problematic supply side memberships for starters, but as you suggest this is going to go both ways.