Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

auDA slapped down in Court, given 30 days only

snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
auDA had a bad run in Federal Court today. They had a huge legal team from Ashurst, their own counsel, a barrister, auDA directors, the chair auDA staff. The full entourage was present.

In short:

-The judge apparently wasn't impressed by auDA's arguments as to the cost of holding the SGM
-Told auDA the law is the law
-I don't believe the government letter had any effect
-Only swaying factor was the registry transformation project which would be transitioning right at the time of the SGM

auDA's 90 day request to delay the SGM denied by the Federal Court. The judge gave 30 days only because of the RTP timing.

So the question is, what did it cost auDA to send a team of lawyers to get a 30 day extension, to send staff directors for something they are legally obliged to hold?

Why would anyone buy auDA's argument about the $70,000 cost of the SGM when they probably spent near that much for 1 day in court?
 
DomainNames

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Notice to auDA and the auDA Board:

Stop wasting .au domain name Consumers money ( auDA.org.au / auDAFoundation.org.au "not for profit" funds) and creating instability in the .au namespace!

www.grumpier.com.au
"Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director "

 
Last edited:
Cheyne

Cheyne

Top Contributor
I am going to ask a reasonable question and hope that I get a reasonable answer.

What is the point of continuing with the SGM?

There are only three possible outcomes from where we sit right now, they are:

1. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you fail to get the votes needed to enact change so everything remains as it is now, see outcome 3.

2. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you get the votes needed to enact change, the Government steps in, dissolves auDA and with it the board, the constitution, and the membership, then brings in an interim CEO and board which consists of the same types of people you just had removed only with less experience and nobody there is actually guide them, the EOI goes out, a new organisation is created and lead by who knows, and then the 29 recommendations are put in to place.

3. The SGM is cancelled, auDA doesn't have to spend the money, you follow the timeline set by the Government and if they don't adhere then they will be removed and an EOI will go out, a new organisation will come in, and the 29 recommendations from the review will be implemented.

In my mind, outcome 3 is the best possible choice for everybody because it gives the current management enough rope to hang themselves (if they are indeed as incompetent as you are claiming) but leaves no doubt as to what happens next and doesn't waste our money.

Going through with outcome 2 will almost certainly cause irreparable damage to the local market, which is exactly what you all said you wanted to avoid because you believe that will happen if direct registrations were introduced, and it's a guarantee that people will stop buying/investing in .au domain names.

I don't want to get to a point where the .au brand is so toxic that registrars and resellers remove them from their primary selling pages in favour of other extensions because at that time all of your .au investments become worthless.

The fact is that no matter what happens in less than 12 months supply and demand will no longer exist, we will all be members with an equal vote but no real say over what goes on. You can stack the votes, you can campaign all you want, but it won't matter because the voices of members will never be the same again.

We all want to see genuine improvement but there is a right way and a wrong way of going about it.
 
snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
Cheyne said:
What is the point of continuing with the SGM?

There are only three possible outcomes from where we sit right now, they are:

1. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you fail to get the votes needed to enact change so everything remains as it is now, see outcome 3.

2. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you get the votes needed to enact change, the Government steps in, dissolves auDA and with it the board, the constitution, and the membership, then brings in an interim CEO and board which consists of the same types of people you just had removed only with less experience and nobody there is actually guide them, the EOI goes out, a new organisation is created and lead by who knows, and then the 29 recommendations are put in to place.

3. The SGM is cancelled, auDA doesn't have to spend the money, you follow the timeline set by the Government and if they don't adhere then they will be removed and an EOI will go out, a new organisation will come in, and the 29 recommendations from the review will be implemented.
Click to expand...

How about Option 4. Directors decide to address and remedy long held member concerns before the SGM actually takes place?

  • Direct registrations
  • Passing through the full wholesale price reduction to Australian business
  • Abandon the fatally flawed Policy Review Panel
  • Improve Transparency & Communications
  • Address demand class director selection issues
  • End the whispering and leak campaigns
 
Cheyne

Cheyne

Top Contributor
snoopy said:
Direct registrations
Click to expand...
Put off until the end of next year. By rolling the current management it does not change this.

snoopy said:
Passing through the full wholesale price reduction to Australian business
Click to expand...
This is not going to change no matter who takes charge. I'm unsure what I can say in public which is why I don't comment on this, but let me just tell you that it's always been like this just under a different delivery method.

snoopy said:
Abandon the fatally flawed Policy Review Panel
Click to expand...
And when the "flawed" panel is dropped and a new one comes in and delivers the same outcome, then what? Is that one going to be flawed too?

snoopy said:
Improve Transparency & Communications
Click to expand...
Already part of the review recommendations.

snoopy said:
Address demand class director selection issues
Click to expand...
Irrelevant since the review removes demand class and changes director selection criteria.

snoopy said:
End the whispering and leak campaigns
Click to expand...
I'm almost certain this will stop once the review recommendations have been put in place.

What you've said is a wish list and not a way forward. You're not going to get everything you want. The longer this goes on the more damage it does, and there will be a point of no return.
 
DomainNames

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Cheyne said:
I am going to ask a reasonable question and hope that I get a reasonable answer.

What is the point of continuing with the SGM?

There are only three possible outcomes from where we sit right now, they are:

1. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you fail to get the votes needed to enact change so everything remains as it is now, see outcome 3.

2. The SGM continues, auDA spend a lot of money, you get the votes needed to enact change, the Government steps in, dissolves auDA and with it the board, the constitution, and the membership, then brings in an interim CEO and board which consists of the same types of people you just had removed only with less experience and nobody there is actually guide them, the EOI goes out, a new organisation is created and lead by who knows, and then the 29 recommendations are put in to place.

3. The SGM is cancelled, auDA doesn't have to spend the money, you follow the timeline set by the Government and if they don't adhere then they will be removed and an EOI will go out, a new organisation will come in, and the 29 recommendations from the review will be implemented.

In my mind, outcome 3 is the best possible choice for everybody because it gives the current management enough rope to hang themselves (if they are indeed as incompetent as you are claiming) but leaves no doubt as to what happens next and doesn't waste our money.

Going through with outcome 2 will almost certainly cause irreparable damage to the local market, which is exactly what you all said you wanted to avoid because you believe that will happen if direct registrations were introduced, and it's a guarantee that people will stop buying/investing in .au domain names.

I don't want to get to a point where the .au brand is so toxic that registrars and resellers remove them from their primary selling pages in favour of other extensions because at that time all of your .au investments become worthless.

The fact is that no matter what happens in less than 12 months supply and demand will no longer exist, we will all be members with an equal vote but no real say over what goes on. You can stack the votes, you can campaign all you want, but it won't matter because the voices of members will never be the same again.

We all want to see genuine improvement but there is a right way and a wrong way of going about it.
Click to expand...

Here is another reason for the SGM to proceed if the auDA Management and auDA Board knew about this and the Registrar and they could have handled it a better way for the Respondent and for auDA:

I wonder who lodged the complaint or who helped, suggested, informed in any way someone else to lodge it?

Legal Precedent ruling against auDA.
 
Last edited:
snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
Agree DomainNames, the handling of that was a huge failing for auDA. Obviously a politically motivated complaint and auDA response was shoddy to say the least.
 
Cheyne

Cheyne

Top Contributor
DomainNames said:
Here is another reason for the SGM to proceed if the auDA Management and auDA Board knew about this and could have handled it a better way for the Respondent and for auDA
Click to expand...
I'm not privvy to the inner workings of auDA, but from a strictly observer point of view this was simply the following of a policy that has been in place for a long time.

Being completely reasonable, you can't on one hand demand for strict policy adherence in terms of meetings, minutes, etc, and then ask for policy flexibility on disputes no matter who it involves. The .au industry is well known and regarded for it's strict policies on complaints and disputes.

And just to look at the other side of this. Imagine how it would have looked if auDA had turned a blind eye to this, given the SGM was called by the registrant in this case - THAT would have set a precedence that you don't want to see.

The end result here is that registrants need more education on domain names (eg. the fact that they don't own them and simply lease the license, the pitfalls of not keeping this information up to date, etc.), but as a registrar I can tell you that it's a big enough struggle educating the everyday consumer to just keep their contact details up to date which causes issues daily.
 
joshrowe

joshrowe

Top Contributor
snoopy said:
No I wasn't, just had the info passed on, so let me know if anything to add or if anything needs clarification.
Click to expand...
I wasn't there in person either, but this sounds similar to what the roving "court reporters" told me too. Once the finalised court orders have been issued, I will share them here.
 
DomainNames

DomainNames

Top Contributor
full steam ahead it seems

QUOTED
www.Grumpier.com.au
Key issues for members include:
Direct Registration
Some people are for direct .au domain name registration, and some are against. Then there are the multitudes of registrants that wouldn’t even know it is on the horizon, because auDA hasn’t directly told them of the possibility; and how and why it would work if it was implemented.
  • Why have all .au registrants not been contacted – as promised by auDA CEO Cameron Boardman, over something so important?
  • Where is the business case promised by auDA CEO Cameron Boardman to show the quantitative benefits?
  • The independent Policy Review Panel established by auDA now appears fatally flawed. Any previous auDA administration would have made sure there was proper representation from all stakeholders, but now there are only 4 people and a Chair left to decide on such an important issue. The latest casualty is the departure of the ACCC panel representative.
  • The lack of a peak business body representative on the panel is fatal. As are the personal opinions of one particular member of the panel who seems to be allowed to denigrate people with impugnity. Why does auDA and John Swinson (Chair of the PRP) allow that to happen?
  • Why is a “lottery” being proposed to break a conflict? Particularly when 89% of domain holders have com.au?
  • Proposed changes to existing policies seem to be going backwards. Why?
  • auDA Chair, Chris Leptos AM, has stated there will be “winners and losers”. This vernacular wreaks of a bullish ASX listed company, not a self-regulatory body whose role is to properly manage and administer the critical national infrastructure of the .au domain name space for the benefit of the Australian community. Why should there be losers? Why should auDA be run as an ASX style company?
Communication and Transparency
  • Since the July 2017 SGM, no lessons have been learnt – auDA continues to exhibit poor communication. There is a lack of transparency about what is actually happening, and board minutes for the latter part of 2017 were only posted recently. That is a 5 month delay.
  • The restructuring proposal of auDA put to Government had no member consultation, including auDA’s own Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) which was set up and then abandoned.
  • Speaking of the CRC, why has this not been re-constituted? The auDA Constitution is old and tired, and needs to reflect current realities.
  • Elected Directors are effectively muzzled from talking effectively and meaningfully to the Members that voted for them.
  • Is there a “whispering campaign” in place to discredit some past staff and management? There are certainly lots of rumours floating around about PPB forensic reports and possible financial irregularities. If these have any substance, these should be disclosed to Members and the parties concerned. If this doesn’t happen soon, that is totally unfair, as it creates undue stress and reputational damage. What other organisation would carry on like this?
  • What is the extent of the legal fees and settlement agreements that auDA has incurred over the past two years? Members have a right to know.
Good Governance
  • Why has the auDA board allowed Demand Class members to be under-represented since November 2017? That’s contrary to the auDA Constitution.
  • Staff and Director attrition has continued to be mind boggling since the previous SGM for such a small organisation. For instance, why did Di Parker leave as auDA Corporate Secretary? Why did Simon Johnson suddenly resign as a Director last November?
  • Have friends or previous colleagues of the CEO been appointed to plum positions within the organisation? If so, were these positions first advertised?
  • The long standing Registry Operator is about to be replaced, but what real benefit will flow to registrars or registrants? By some reports, the wholesale price has decreased by around 60%, but registrars apparently are only going to get around a 10% discount. If true, this seems a pittance – what happens to the balance? Many people think this is no more than a cash grab by auDA. Why did they do it this way? Could it be deemed as a “double cash grab” if direct registrations are approved?
  • New independent director Suzanne Ewart has been made chair of the auDA board Security and Risk sub-committee. What relevant experience does she have in this most important discipline?
  • Sandra Hook is the longest serving Independent, but what has she done about any of the above? What relevant domain industry experience does she have?
  • Does all of this indicate a potentially systemic problem for our Membership organisation? This is all happening on their watch.
  • We believe there needs to be some positive and effective change – which is why we are proposing the following resolutions:
Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director​
 
Last edited:
DomainNames

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Why is auDA Management and auDA Board wasting .au domain name registrant Consumer money / auDA Funds on this?

What has this got to do with auDA's role of management of the .au namespace and Consumer protection etc?

Another reason why the SGM must go ahead and all Resolutions passed.

https://www.auda.org.au/blog/new-au...x-will-rank-cities-for-digital-entrepreneurs/
"auDA is proud to announce it is funding the first phase of the Australasian Digital Cities Index."

au Domain Administration CEO Cameron Boardman said the project was important for the whole digital economy.

“As the administrator of the .au namespace, auDA is delighted to support this initiative in order to promote greater digital inclusiveness and to ensure Australian cities are fully embracing their digital economic advantages,” Mr Boardman said.
___________

Cameron what are you talking about and auDA Board what are you signing off to use auDA Funds for? People use the internet with or without auDA or this funding being done. Stick with focus on .au namespace management and stop Pis$ing away auDA Funds ( .au domain name consumer money) ?​
________________
 
Last edited:
snoopy

snoopy

Top Contributor
Cheyne said:
This is not going to change no matter who takes charge. I'm unsure what I can say in public which is why I don't comment on this, but let me just tell you that it's always been like this just under a different delivery method.
Click to expand...

Of course it will change, jacking up their own revenue at the expense of registrants isn't a plan that is ever going to go down well.

Cheyne said:
And when the "flawed" panel is dropped and a new one comes in and delivers the same outcome, then what? Is that one going to be flawed too?
Click to expand...

The issue is the people on the panel & the lack of representation.

Cheyne said:
What you've said is a wish list and not a way forward. You're not going to get everything you want. The longer this goes on the more damage it does, and there will be a point of no return.
Click to expand...

auDA needs people in charge who have some hope of achieving reforms, the current management has no hope. Many members do not trust them or think them capable. They have withheld information from members, attempted to smear them by leaking the PPB report, sued them in the Federal Court, attempted to destroy their businesses. They have done everything except address the SGM issues. And now they hope the members will have confidence in them to reform? I think it is probably over for current management.

auDA's best chance of achieving reform is to have a cleanout before the constitutional reforms are presented, address member concerns, prove that members would be better off voting for reform than against it. Even then the chance of reform is low but some form of interim management is the best step forward.
 
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: 545 (members: 0, guests: 545)

Forum statistics

Threads
11,100
Messages
92,051
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo

Latest posts

Share this page

Top