This Is Embarrassing auDA

[neddy]

Stuart Benjamin, current supposed Independent Director and Chair of auDA, is still listed as a Demand Class Member. The membership list is current as at 3rd April. He was supposed to have resigned.

No doubt once auDA reads this, they will scurry around and update the list.

But as I say on Domainer today:

"If auDA now claims his removal from the Membership List was just an oversight, then I don’t buy that. Particularly given the spotlight on the mechanics of this appointment.

auDA has had time to update the list for other membership changes – see below. I’ve compared membership lists from November 2016 to the current one. In the 3rd April table, new members are shown in green – in the 2016 table, red denotes people who are no longer members in 2017.

Stuart Benjamin is there “loud and proud” in both lists."​

 

[snoopy]

Ned are you saying that if he hasn't resigned as demand member then his appointment would be invalid? If he is still officially a demand member this could have effected election voting?

 

[neddy]

That didn't take auDA long to get things changed! A LinkedIn article here; a tweet there - and then hey presto, action! The power of the pen.

 

[snoopy]

btw congratulations to new AUDA member Eric S Johnson!

 

[neddy]

By the way, the Membership List in my article is Demand Class only. I separated the list out.

 

[Scott.L]

How QUICK was that?

 

[snoopy]

How QUICK was that?

AUDA staff monitor the forum.

 

[Scott.L]

AUDA staff monitor the forum.

if only we could monitor the staff. LOL

 

[neddy]

btw congratulations to new AUDA member Eric S Johnson!

Who's he?

 

[neddy]

AUDA staff monitor the forum.

I also sent the CEO an email this morning. Interesting to see if I get a reply.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Ask him if direct registrations are still a good idea.

 

[snoopy]

Who's he?

Simon's great uncle? Look out for new member "Snoopina" coming soon....

 

[Scott.L]

Ausregistry Group PTY LTD is a “Demand Class Member”? But wait, it has always been a “supply class” entity;

Let’s do a simple search: abr.business.gov.au

Ausregistry Group PTY LTD is not found in a ASIC search because; its name changed to BOMBORA TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD

Who is BOMBORA TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD?

Neustar Inc.
Neustar Inc. acquired Bombora Technologies and its subsidiaries, which includes ARI Registry Services.

Who is Neustar Inc?
An American technology company that provides domain name registry for .biz, .us .co, and .nyc top-level domains.

Wait, this can’t be happening?

Ausregistry is the Registry Operator and is listed as a “demand class” member on the auDA – with a privilege to vote to or for a demand class director whilst also, voting on the supply class side as Ausregistry PTY LTD?

I don’t think they qualify for “demand status” do you?



auDA Membership rules:

9.4 Qualification for Supply Class Membership

Any Legal Person that is a Registry Operator, an auDA accredited Registrar, or a reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar, in the .au name space, qualifies to be a Supply Class Member.

If a group of related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law) consists of more than one Legal Person who qualifies for Supply Class membership, then only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Oh no! It's all gone Pete Tong...

 

[DomainNames]

Ausregistry Group PTY LTD is a “Demand Class Member”? But wait, it has always been a “supply class” entity;

Let’s do a simple search: abr.business.gov.au

Ausregistry Group PTY LTD is not found in a ASIC search because; its name changed to BOMBORA TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD

Who is BOMBORA TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD?

Neustar Inc.
Neustar Inc. acquired Bombora Technologies and its subsidiaries, which includes ARI Registry Services.

Who is Neustar Inc?
An American technology company that provides domain name registry for .biz, .us .co, and .nyc top-level domains.

Wait, this can’t be happening?
Ausregistry is the Registry Operator and is listed as a “demand class” member on the auDA – with a privilege to vote to or for a demand class director whilst also, voting on the supply class side as Ausregistry PTY LTD?

I don’t think they qualify for “demand status” do you?
View attachment 388

auDA Membership rules:

9.4 Qualification for Supply Class Membership

Any Legal Person that is a Registry Operator, an auDA accredited Registrar, or a reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar, in the .au name space, qualifies to be a Supply Class Member.

If a group of related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law) consists of more than one Legal Person who qualifies for Supply Class membership, then only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.

auDA Breach!!!! ...Oh wait auDA board says it is all OK..... move on...move on..

 

[Scott.L]

Just to further clarify the issue:

auDA Membership rules:
9.4 Qualification for Supply Class Membership
Any Legal Person that is a Registry Operator, an auDA accredited Registrar, or a reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar, in the .au name space, qualifies to be a Supply Class Member.

If a group of related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law) consists of more than one Legal Person who qualifies for Supply Class membership, then only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.

What is a related entity as defined by the Corporations Law?

related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law)
"related entity “in relation to a body corporate, means any of the following:

(a) a promoter of the body;
(b) a relative of such a promoter;
(c) a relative of a spouse of such a promoter;
(d) a director or member of the body or of a related body corporate;
(e) a relative of such a director or member;
(f) a relative of a spouse of such a director or member;
(g) a body corporate that is related to the first-mentioned body;
(h) a beneficiary under a trust of which the first-mentioned body is or has at any time been a trustee;
(i) a relative of such a beneficiary;
(j) a relative of a spouse of such a beneficiary;
(k) a body corporate one of whose directors is also a director of the first-mentioned body;
(l) a trustee of a trust under which a person is a beneficiary, where the person is a related entity
of the first-mentioned body because of any other application or applications of this definition.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s9.html

what or who is a Legal Person?

legal person
LAW

• an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.

what is a Body Corporate?
LAW

• A legal entity (such as an association, company, person, government, government agency, or institution) identified by a particular name. Also called corporation, corporate body or corporate entity

 

[DomainNames]

Just to further clarify the issue:
auDA Membership rules:
9.4 Qualification for Supply Class Membership
Any Legal Person that is a Registry Operator, an auDA accredited Registrar, or a reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar, in the .au name space, qualifies to be a Supply Class Member.

If a group of related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law) consists of more than one Legal Person who qualifies for Supply Class membership, then only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.

What is a related entity as defined by the Corporations Law?

related entities (as defined in the Corporations Law)
"related entity “in relation to a body corporate, means any of the following:

(a) a promoter of the body;
(b) a relative of such a promoter;
(c) a relative of a spouse of such a promoter;
(d) a director or member of the body or of a related body corporate;
(e) a relative of such a director or member;
(f) a relative of a spouse of such a director or member;
(g) a body corporate that is related to the first-mentioned body;
(h) a beneficiary under a trust of which the first-mentioned body is or has at any time been a trustee;
(i) a relative of such a beneficiary;
(j) a relative of a spouse of such a beneficiary;
(k) a body corporate one of whose directors is also a director of the first-mentioned body;
(l) a trustee of a trust under which a person is a beneficiary, where the person is a related entity
of the first-mentioned body because of any other application or applications of this definition.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s9.html
what or who is a Legal Person?
legal person
LAW

• an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.

what is a Body Corporate?
LAW

• A legal entity (such as an association, company, person, government, government agency, or institution) identified by a particular name. Also called corporation, corporate body or corporate entity

Email ASIC, auDA, auDA Board, Minister for Communications, Shadow Minister... .. post their responses.. ..

 

[DomainNames]

WOW
Looks like numerous auDA Supply memberships need to be cancelled immediately and their previous board votes, surveys, invites to stakeholder meetings etc where also invalid?

How could this have been allowed to go on for so long?

 

[neddy]

Something else that should embarrass auDA are the broken promises of the CEO and Chairman at the AGM.

New story on Domainer today - it concerns their promises / assurances regarding transparency and communication. Things like publication of Minutes and Agendas etc ...

Thank goodness I recorded the meeting - they can't dispute what they said.

 

[snoopy]

Something else that should embarrass auDA are the broken promises of the CEO and Chairman at the AGM.

New story on Domainer today - it concerns their promises / assurances regarding transparency and communication. Things like publication of Minutes and Agendas etc ...

Thank goodness I recorded the meeting - they can't dispute what they said.

I don't know of the CEO is genuine or not, he could well be, I'd like to think he is. I think the main problem though is a paranoid board, a board that branch stacks to try and retain its power, tries to hide at every opportunity.

Who decided to remove the mintutes?
Whose idea was the code of conduct?

These are key questions.