Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

auDA casual board vacancy

Shane

Shane

Top Contributor
I emailed the interim chair (Erhan) and the other director involved in the process (Tim) on Friday afternoon to advise that I was withdrawing my nomination.

The way this whole process has been handled is nothing short of disgraceful. It's been a month since I was asked to pay for my own probity checks, and that a decision was imminent. Yet here we are a month later and I've had no further communication.

The saddest part is that I'm not surprised at all after we went through this same process last year.

Looks like the only way for us to continue to gain genuine demand class representation is via election. Bring on the AGM!
 
neddy

neddy

Top Contributor
How disappointing this is Shane.

I have written an article on Domainer today which elaborates on this (includes your partially redacted email to Erhan and Tim).

And here we were all thinking that they listened to members at the SGM. :( They will have egg on their faces come election time.
 
snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
The decision to appoint demand directors should be completely out of the hands of other AUDA directors.

It must be the decision of members and AUDA needs to change its constitution as was requested at the SGM to prevent this issue ever happening again. AUDA will do everything it can to prevent the appointment of domainer/small business directors, we've just seen it with the process now dragging on over a month.

Will AUDA now attempt to stonewall the constitutional change that members clearly wanted at the SGM?
 
Shane

Shane

Top Contributor
What we can take from this is that certain auDA directors are against genuine demand class representation.

What are they afraid of?

It's a disgrace that they're taking this course of action. They're not respecting the fact that auDA is a membership organisation.

Those directors may think that pissing me off will deter me from running for election, but thankfully I have a couple of great supporters keeping me on track.

I applaud Simon and Tim for posting in this thread.
 
B

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Were all candidates forced to pay for police checks?

Will candidates at the AGM have to pay before their nominations are accepted?

When did police checks come in?
 
neddy

neddy

Top Contributor
Bacon Farmer said:
Were all candidates forced to pay for police checks?

Will candidates at the AGM have to pay before their nominations are accepted?

When did police checks come in?
Click to expand...
What another bulldust, arbitrary decision by auDA. Reminds me of the CoC - and we know what happened to that.

When you put your name down to stand for election, you warrant that you are eligible as per The Corporations Act. It's a bit like purchasing a domain name - you give a warranty, and if you tell porkies, you lose.

Here are last year's requirements (from auDA website).
 
Shane

Shane

Top Contributor
Bacon Farmer said:
Were all candidates forced to pay for police checks?

Will candidates at the AGM have to pay before their nominations are accepted?

When did police checks come in?
Click to expand...
Good questions that I'd also like answered.

I was asked to order police and bankruptcy checks only a few business hours after the interview, and that the reason was "to save time". A month later, and what a joke that now is... :rolleyes:

Perhaps they thought they might find something... :D
 
snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
Shane said:
Good questions that I'd also like answered.

I was asked to order police and bankruptcy checks only a few business hours after the interview, and that the reason was "to save time". A month later, and what a joke that now is... :rolleyes:

Perhaps they thought they might find something... :D
Click to expand...

I find it strange they'd ask you to pay for it.

They send a groups of directors to Icann meetings (with no clear justification as to why they all need to go) yet won't spend money on something basic like that?
 
Shane

Shane

Top Contributor
snoopy said:
I find it strange they'd ask you to pay for it.

They send a groups of directors to Icann meetings (with no clear justification as to why they all need to go) yet won't spend money on something basic like that?
Click to expand...
For sure.

To be fair, they have since stated that they'll be reimbursing me for it. It's not about the money though, it's about the overall process.
 
Scott.L

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Don't give up Shane!

In fact “Supply Side” holds 5 possible votes, essentially the Chair holds 2 votes (divided quorum) only 1 vote from a Demand Class director and any board resolution can be passed.

upload_2017-9-19_14-3-52.png

24.5 Decision on Questions

Subject to clause 24.11, questions arising at any meeting of Directors are to be decided by a majority of votes. Each Director (not including the CEO) has one vote and a determination by a majority of the voting Directors will for all purposes be deemed a determination of the Directors.
In case of an equality of votes at a meeting at which a quorum is present the Chairperson has a second or casting vote in addition to a deliberative vote.
 
Scott.L

Scott.L

Top Contributor
findtim said:
8 + 1
Click to expand...

The independent vote is important, but, if that director is not in attendance or has given that vote to another director (supply) and you or Simon were to abstain? Hmmmmmm.... many combinations could occur due to this situation.

Also, can you inform someone to edit the chairs term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 209 (members: 0, guests: 209)

Forum statistics

Threads
11,099
Messages
92,049
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo

Latest posts

Share this page

Top