auDA Revokes Code of Conduct

For all who have not heard. Here is an excerpt from the recent communication to members from auDA.

Member Code of Conduct: The meeting included a valuable discussion on the Code of Conduct. Members who spoke on this issue expressed their support for a member Code of Conduct, but felt it should be developed in partnership with members. The Board accepts this position and has revoked the current Code of Conduct. A membership consultation process on a new Code of Conduct will be held, and a revised Code will be submitted to the 2017 AGM. A Code of Conduct for Board members will be developed as part of the next phase of governance work and members will have the opportunity to provide input prior to any final decisions.

Click to expand...

While I applaud auDA for making this decision, I am still disappointed that the members had to force this issue which should have been a non issue if auDA had consulted its members in the first place. The CoC for the Board will certainly be an interesting discussion.

as i said after monday, i sat, i listened and i HEARD, but as most of you know i was always listening/reading
i haven't talked to a single member that has said they don't want a CoC, just a fair one, the board has revoked it, the board has said we will seek input from members on it and i expect it will get passed at the 2017 agm.
so slap us on the wrist and move forward as we all deep down love the auda concept.

tim

Do we really need one?

It's not like we are a footy club that has an issue with disrespectful members.

From the press release it look like they have addressed a lot of issues (minutes policy restored, auhq rebranding on hold), is there anything they have missed or is it all covered?

This is also a welcome development,

Appointment of Independent Directors and Chair: The Board established a recruitment subcommittee of Tim Connell, Sandra Hook, Leonie Walsh, and Erhan Karabardak to manage the process and conduct interviews for the recruitment of an independent director and chair.

Click to expand...

Bacon Farmer said:

Do we really need one?

It's not like we are a footy club that has an issue with disrespectful members.

Click to expand...

It is a worthy debate. The feeling I get is a lot of members are not against it if the policy is reasonable but I get where you are coming from with this.

It's fixing a non existant problem or is it red tape policy "improvements" to justify jobs?

Policy for appearances sake?

The existing constitution works.

Bacon Farmer said:

The existing constitution works.

Click to expand...

The existing Constitution is outdated and needs change. The Constitution defines who and what auDA represents. We need to strengthen the core values of the organisation as defined in the Constitution as many of these values have been ignored in recent times.

Bacon Farmer said:

It's fixing a non existant problem or is it red tape policy "improvements" to justify jobs?

Policy for appearances sake?

The existing constitution works.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I do think it's reasonable for a member organisation to have a member code of conduct.

Not the one we were slapped with of course...

Lemon said:

The existing Constitution is outdated and needs change. The Constitution defines who and what auDA represents. We need to strengthen the core values of the organisation as defined in the Constitution as many of these values have been ignored in recent times.

Click to expand...

I meant with regards to sacking a bad member.

Other issues like why there are two types of members, I agree need updating.

Shane said:

I don't disagree, but I do think it's reasonable for a member organisation to have a member code of conduct.

Not the one we were slapped with of course...

Click to expand...

Yeah it's reasonable but it's just a distraction from direct registrations.

Let's get the order right auDA, members vote on if needed, then panel, then feedback on preferred version, then voting on it.

Bacon Farmer said:

Other issues

Click to expand...

opps, thread diverging....

Bacon Farmer said:

Other issues like why there are two types of members, I agree need updating.

Click to expand...

what would you suggest?
no classes and the potential for 1 class to over-rule the other? make sure you think both ways on your answer and also it could make independents redundant.
or more classes? having 2 neutrals to vote for? but how could neutral be achieved?
or another suggestion?
i'd be interested to hear other views on this perhaps in a new thread.
tim

Bacon Farmer said:

Yeah it's reasonable but it's just a distraction from direct registrations.

Click to expand...

Some of the reasons for the S249D, which is why I stood up for it, was for auDA to recognise that it is a member organisation and that it needs to have open and transparent procedures. They have committed to this.

At a meeting yesterday, the Board reaffirmed its commitment to listening to all stakeholders and using a consultative process to inform and engage members regarding important changes

Click to expand...

This commitment ensures Members and the general community will be consulted, in an open and transparent way, in matters which may have an impact on them. This is a good thing.

findtim said:

opps, thread diverging....


what would you suggest?
no classes and the potential for 1 class to over-rule the other? make sure you think both ways on your answer and also it could make independents redundant.
or more classes? having 2 neutrals to vote for? but how could neutral be achieved?
or another suggestion?
i'd be interested to hear other views on this perhaps in a new thread.
tim

Click to expand...

What other country has a supply class?

It's a public good not a supply industry good.

Neutrality? That's why we are fighting direct registrations and the supply sides need to pay their shareholders (foreign owned venture capitalists) is fuelling the whole direct registration concept!

Bacon Farmer said:

What other country has a supply class?

It's a public good not a supply industry good.

Click to expand...

Agree, the two classes makes little sense. Needs one class only, "member".

Bacon Farmer said:

It's a public good not a supply industry good.

Click to expand...

would you not agree its a symbiotic relationship, playing devils advocate: surely only 1 class would see demand thinking take over totally.
am i wrong?
tim

Yes you are wrong.

findtim said:

opps, thread diverging....


what would you suggest?
no classes and the potential for 1 class to over-rule the other? make sure you think both ways on your answer and also it could make independents redundant.
or more classes? having 2 neutrals to vote for? but how could neutral be achieved?
or another suggestion?
i'd be interested to hear other views on this perhaps in a new thread.
tim

Click to expand...

Why not this proven membership model from Canada?
I would like to know why auDA and the auDA Board still refuse to do it?
Where exactly is the voting rights for the current 3 million paying .au domain name registrant consumers who fund auDA and who fund the Board and who have funded Ausregistry?
Why charge so much for Supply Membership?
Why charge anything for membership?

https://cira.ca/membership
https://cira.ca/membership/become-a-member
https://cira.ca/membership/benefits
https://cira.ca/membership/member-activities
FREE membership
https://cira.ca/membership/manage-my-membership

@DomainNames they are all good questions and i'll make sure other countries examples are reviewed , ca, nz, uk, icann.
any other countries you'd suggest? ( please don't send me an atlas LOL )
tim

findtim said:

@DomainNames they are all good questions and i'll make sure other countries examples are reviewed , ca, nz, uk, icann.
any other countries you'd suggest? ( please don't send me an atlas LOL )
tim

Click to expand...

Hi Tim, Yes I would suggest auDA and the Board reviews the other countries and makes some suggestions for members to consider and provide feedback on.

Canada CIRA seems to be the "best practice" model for membership we should emulate and if needed even improve on. They have easy links and all the info auDA and the Board requires to consider and put forward to members.

It is crucial auDA engages with all auDA members on this but I think sure the FREE membership could be done without needing members approval. Maybe ask members if they would like to pay or get membership free to be sure?

Note Canada CIRA shows the true respect for paying domain name registrants giving them all Free membership rights if they wish to become members but it rightly limits membership and voting to 1 person / entity etc to avoid " stacking" and any one person or entity etc gaining unfair power.. which is the issue in Australia and always has been.

i've been through the cira site many times, it looks and acts good.
everyone knows auda doesn't make any money from a $22 membership, its plainly obvious.
stacking imo personal opinion is avoided through more members, 3 million domains and 300 members its just common knowledge.

tim