auda membership, ASK tim

[DomainNames]

On the subject of free memberships, I am inclined to agree, but there is another side to it.

Financially of course auDA don't need to charge. 150-odd members x $22 membership fee is inconsequential for an organisation of its size.

But as Erhan has mentioned previously, be careful what you wish for...

Remember the email sent out by a certain registrar regarding the direct registration survey? They clearly had a lot of success getting people to complete that survey and heavily influence the result in their own favour.

What if they or another registrar did the same thing to try and get demand class member numbers up? With a $22 fee I imagine most of the email recipients would ignore it.

But if it was free... I'd say they'd be able to pick up a number of new members that would dwarf the current membership base.

If that registrar then has some sort of influence over that group of members and can discreetly promote registrar-friendly demand class members, well we can forget about ever having real representation on the board.

Okay, okay I realise that is really going down the paranoid conspiracy theory path, but due to the sheer volume of 'contacts' held by the registrars, free membership could certainly be to their advantage and not ours.

If nothing else it's another side to the argument...

Memberships in CA is limited to those who own a domain name so the Yes Vote rigging scandal which occured in Australia recently may not have worked so well at least made people think more.

With more .com.au registrants knowing the TRUE facts of what the direct .au means and how it can harm or cost them more more people would have voted NO.

It appears also that some on the Board in supply achieved a board seat with only 10 votes? Get10 associated companies or your resellers who will profit from your power on the Auda board to vote for you and you got yourself a seat on the gravy train....? Is this why we see some old names keep appearing each year?

I want to know what Auda and the board did against the Auda board member Melbourne IT for the survey it sent out which in my opinion is a clear conflict of interest which Auda admits swayed the vote to Yes and made the .au get through.

Remember direct .au was rejected for the last 10 years at voting and surveys also! Nothing changed but the Yes vote survey with no option for a No vote. This looks a lot like vote rigging to me but maybe I missed the No vote button if there was one?

It seems very easy for a supply member to almost buy" a seat on the board... Associated companies should not be allowed to stck a vote for their same company or candidate. This may be worth someone looking into...If they could be bothered

 

[Shane]

When all facts are presented the majority usually come to the right consensus.

Scare tactics are best dealt with by education.

So a rogue registry might pollute their emailed clients perceptions but auDA can and should ensure all sides or positions are considered in an open and transparent way.

I completely agree that in an ideal world that's what would happen.

However we know that auDA's communication with domain owners (via the survey) was very ordinary and far from educational, and the registrar used the power of their client numbers to push things in their desired direction.

So yeah I totally agree with you, but based on the way that the registrars and auDA have acted so far, there is the potential that free memberships could have hindered rather than helped our cause.

An ideal world for me would be that memberships are free to all domain name owners and auDA actively communicates with members in a far more educational and impartial way.

 

[findtim]

i understand your concerns shane but i'm willing to take that chance, as baconfarmer says

When all facts are presented the majority usually come to the right consensus

and thats the problem, the roundabout ! , auda has to be incontrol and if a registrar is seen to be blatantly MISLEADING then action needs to be taken.
In the example of the survey, where was auda???????????????? they are the GOVERNING BODY so what action was taken?
conspiracy: yes, but i think the risk of dodgy discounts for members or the like would be to great a risk for a registrar to take should auda find out, but then we get back to "where is auda" ?
tim

 

[findtim]

that survey should have been thrown away, its left a big black cloud for a lot of people over the effectiveness of audas powers and its statis of being impartial or not.
tim

 

[DomainNames]

Neddy should put his name forward as an Auda supply board member. He is honest, no BS and sticks up for what is fair and right. Come on Ned put your name forward. It is very obvious some issues are occuring which need to be not only exposed and investigated but action taken.

The "yes vote rigging scandal" is a serious issue and someone needs to be taking action in my opinion and the options of many. A survey with only 1 option worked in a way to give a certain result is not really a serious valid survey is it. Auda should have taken action no matter the power of those behind the survey or their positions and interests.

 

[neddy]

Neddy should put his name forward as an Auda supply board member. He is honest, no BS and sticks up for what is fair and right. Come on Ned put your name forward. It is very obvious some issues are occuring which need to be not only exposed and investigated but action taken.

@DomainNames - thanks for the endorsement, but as I said in the other thread, I would not stand for election for the same reasons I have never stood for Demand Class membership. I'd rather have the right to be vocal about things (good and bad). It seems to me that once you become a Director, some mystery virus strikes which stops people communicating with their constituents.

 

[findtim]

i personal think neds right that he is better doing what he is doing withour constraints and thats the knowledge we all get to share in.
each to their own role and neds got his down pat imo
domainer.com.au is a perfect niche that serves us all well
tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

...However we know that auDA's communication with domain owners (via the survey) was very ordinary and far from educational, and the registrar used the power of their client numbers to push things in their desired direction....

You were referencing someone, who being a board member, is ultimately responsible for that.

35 conflicted supply siders shouldn't have more say than 1.7 million unrepresented stakeholders on the Australian domain system and he was saying they should be kept out of the decision making process. It's just a scare tactic. The sooner that conflicted leveraged minority is booted the more representative it will become.