What's new

This Is Embarrassing auDA

DomainNames

Top Contributor
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 minutes?
Whose idea was the code of conduct?

These are key questions.

Who can find out the answers?
 

neddy

Top Contributor
Good to see that today's article on Domainer has definitely been seen by auDA (and ICANN).

I always post to LinkedIn and Twitter - and this was the feedback from LinkedIn (so far).
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Good to see that today's article on Domainer has definitely been seen by auDA (and ICANN).

I always post to LinkedIn and Twitter - and this was the feedback from LinkedIn.

Only 2? Sounds like the stats are playing up
 

neddy

Top Contributor
Only 2? Sounds like the stats are playing up
Most directors don't list their main occupation as auDA. Judging from some phone calls I received today, I know that the majority have read my articles though.

And believe it or not, Cameron Boardman does not seem to have a current LinkedIn listing.
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Most directors don't list their main occupation as auDA. Judging from some phone calls I received today, I know that the majority have read my articles though.

And believe it or not, Cameron Boardman does not seem to have a current LinkedIn listing.

Strange to see the auDA CEO has no active linkedin profile? https://www.linkedin.com/in/cameron-boardman-aa22091/
Cameron Boardman
Manager - Victoria & South Australia at Invest Hong Kong
Invest Hong Kong
Melbourne, Australia
2 connections
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Most directors don't list their main occupation as auDA. Judging from some phone calls I received today, I know that the majority have read my articles though.

And believe it or not, Cameron Boardman does not seem to have a current LinkedIn listing.

Right I see I missed the comment about it being a LinkedIn post. From what I know of it AUDA staff are regularly here (and I would have thought domainer also).
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
It seems some people promote their power in such a decision making organisation as auDA when it comes to generating sales leads for their own business.

We often see directors promote their roles at auDA when it suits them or their business. Does it help them get more business and some form of commercial or financial gain? I think in many cases it has & does.

If I had a domain name issue I would be far more likely to contact someone on the auDA Board such as Erhan. Clearly his auDA Board role helps his profile when it comes to his existing and potential client domain name matters.

Will Erhan see an increase in his business from confusion and issues around the pending proposed competing .au extension.. possibly or probably. Will he gain a financial benefit from this.. who knows. He may have made a disclaimer about it to auDA but nothing has been made public as we do see in most of country administration board requirements.

I was of the opinion Erhan was previously against the proposed competing un needed .au extension but he seemed to change his mind and then voted to support it once he became a supply class director. I for one was very disappointed in this.

We also noted this change of opinion and "unanimous" vote from Tim and Simon ( both demand representatives and on auDA Board!). I can only assume Simon changed his mind as it helped him to get all of the supply "demand" members votes and secure a role on the auDA Board again. As for Tim who knows why he changed over against what he said on this forum to us all. He certainly lost a lot of demand support after it and has chosen to talk instead about movies and anything else he can on the forum since to deflect attention and change the hot topics being discussed... yes people have noticed and are all commenting.


Erhan had promised these would be done but again we have no updates years later..Both had been discussed in great detail.
  • FREE COR ( held up by Ausregistry or who?). Yes it can be done. Yes it is done in most other countroes FREE - The remaining period of the registration is transferred - no need for a new registration fee!)
  • RDNH policy update ( held up by who?) Erhan himself said this was needed years ago.. Who is holding it up and why?
 

neddy

Top Contributor
I've decided to publish a few "Top Secret" auDA documents on Domainer today. And I am taking the piss when I say they are "top secret". ;)

In my enquiries about the rationale behind their decision to remove all these docs, one of the lines that gets trotted out is:

“Change necessitates privacy”

Oh, my goodness! So the removal of Minutes and Agendas and other material going back years and years is going to help facilitate this change?

Imagine the uproar if the Government of the day decided to delete Hansard and every other record of Government decision making?

Get real auDA!
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
I've decided to publish a few "Top Secret" auDA documents on Domainer today. And I am taking the piss when I say they are "top secret". ;)

In my enquiries about the rationale behind their decision to remove all these docs, one of the lines that gets trotted out is:

“Change necessitates privacy”

Oh, my goodness! So the removal of Minutes and Agendas and other material going back years and years is going to help facilitate this change?

Imagine the uproar if the Government of the day decided to delete Hansard and every other record of Government decision making?

Get real auDA!

Was it removed so it is harder for some people to get into REAL trouble.... is that is the real reason... Just like some well known cases files go missing, get deleted, burn't.... shredded,


https://www.maddocks.com.au/document-retention-and-destruction-in-australia/
The new year is fast approaching and it seems timely to remind you of legislation that goes along with a ‘cleaning out’ of the archives. Before you press delete or shred that document, be sure to exercise diligence in complying with document and record retention requirements. Non-compliance can result in economic loss or even strict criminal liability for individuals and organisations.

Background
There are various legislative regimes in Australia which prescribe specific timeframes for document and record retention and destruction. Non-compliance with such requirements can result in economic loss, such as losing coverage of insurance, or even strict criminal liability for individuals and organisations – the most common example being for a company, its directors and officers.

Currently, there are around 80 Acts at both the State and Federal level which regulate document and record retention and destruction. The various regimes are not codified in any way, some are industry specific and some are catch-all legislation. Where there is an applicable regime, care should be taken to ensure that requirements in relation to the form, manner, location and length of time that documents must be kept are complied with.

Where there is no clear legislative guidance as to the applicable retention period, the documents must be kept for a reasonable time, which is usually seven years.

Destruction of documents


In addition to the retention period set out in the various regimes, there are additional common law and legislative duties in relation to document destruction. For example s254 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) creates an offence of the destruction of evidence which ‘is, or is reasonably likely to be, required in evidence in a legal proceeding’. "
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-5-3_11-58-8.jpeg
    upload_2017-5-3_11-58-8.jpeg
    17.2 KB · Views: 3

Lemon

Top Contributor
I question if some of auda's new positioning is actually contradictory to it's constitution.

Re: Transparency
AUDA CONSTITUTION
3.2 Activities
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;

Re: Membership Code of Conduct
In the opinion of the auDA Board, should there be a breach of any of the conditions outlined above, the auDA Board reserve the right to act in the following ways:
Temporarily suspend membership until conflicting behaviours are resolved
OR
Revoke membership rights and privileges

Is the membership code of conduct contradictory to the Constitution which covers members conduct?

AUDA CONSTITUTION
13.3 Expulsion of Members for Conduct Detrimental to Objects
auDA in general meeting may by special resolution terminate the membership of a Member if:
a. the Directors resolve that in the opinion of the Directors the Member may have been guilty of conduct detrimental to the interests of auDA or to the objects of auDA; and
b. the notice of meeting specifies the purpose of the meeting and the general nature of conduct referred to in the Directors' resolution; and
c. the Member is given the opportunity to be heard at that part of the general meeting at which the resolution is considered.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Lemon, I believe the code of conduct directly conflicts with the constitution, as you point out a member can only be removed by special resolution, not a board room vote by directors with a personal beef.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Lemon, I believe the code of conduct directly conflicts with the constitution, as you point out a member can only be removed by special resolution, not a board room vote by directors with a personal beef.

What happens next?
Do the members vote against the member considered guilty by the directors of a breach? what is evidenced? How is it judged? How is the outcome determined? or, do we all simply know the member is a dickhead and leave it at that?
 

Lemon

Top Contributor
What happens next?
Do the members vote against the member considered guilty by the directors of a breach? what is evidenced? How is it judged? How is the outcome determined? or, do we all simply know the member is a dickhead and leave it at that?
Members get to vote and the accused has to buy everyone a beer.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
Latest auDA Newsletter is in.

Domainer and DNT articles and comments have obviously got up their nose - huge justification piece within the newsletter as to why they took down all the previous Minutes / Agendas / Reports etc.

What a load of codswallop imho.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Whilst not publishing board minutes may be acceptable for some organisations, changing policy and removing minutes for an organisation with transparency, credibility and integrity issues is never going to be good idea.

Is AUDA oblivious to the fact that they are in a very different situation to the typical organisation (i.e. most don’t have massive transparency issues) or are they just playing us for fools with that article?
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top