neddy
Top Contributor
Thanks Luke! Appreciated.
Absolutely correct. Look at how many Supply members supported the Grumpy campaign / SGM.
2017 Board Elections
- Thread starter Lemon
- Start date
snoopy
Top Contributor
I don't know why AUDA don't just give a straight answer to this. My gut feeling though is that AUDA probably got completely rolled in the negotiation of that contract.
We all know in the past they've done everything they can to avoid a tender. They only changed tack when they had no choice. Wouldn't surprise me if the volumes for price drops were so high they never got met because AUDA would have been negotiating from a weak position (no willingness to walk away). This is all just a guess though. AUDA should release a statement explain why the price hasn't fallen instead of us all having to read between the lines.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Is it even possible the new CEO, auDA Board cannot get access to the information now? Is this true or a smokescreen excuse?
Things like this is where the ACCC and Government committees start to get involved.
Maybe it will take Wikileaks to get the information and disclose it? It is in the public, government, auDA Member and consumer interests.
Something is not right ...just like the PPB Investigation and Report... Where is it? What's in it? What is being hidden from stakeholders?
Does the Department of Communications Minister know everything going on and he is allowing it to go on the way it has and why?
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Ned, why did the Supply members support the www.Grumpy.com.au campaign / SGM. Maybe refresh some memories now it is time for the election and candidates to show what they have done and will do differently.
Many of the questionable auDA Board decisions where claimed as being "unanimous" by the auDA Board... minutes show very few standing up and making it onto the minutes for standing up. Doesn't this mean some on the existing board still have questions to answer? Why vote for them or support them again if the SGM was needed?
Might be better for a complete Board spill with all positions up for grabs and even a confidence vote by members in the auDA CEO? Certainly also members should be told how the auDA CEO performance bonus works?
snoopy
Top Contributor
Of course they'd have access to all the info, they are running the place. I suspect they are just ignoring the issue hoping it will go away. I agree something is not right.
How could volumes go from 1.3 million registrations to 3.1 million with the price not going down? I suspect AUDA negotiated a dud deal and don't want to admit it.
snoopy
Top Contributor
To me this "unanimous" is the old Chair's language. Usually AUDA bandies it about when a decision was made that members would not agree with (e.g. word was used when they went into exclusive negotiations with Ausregistry). The whole idea of a board all having the one view is a very bad sign and says something about the leadership not tolerating other viewpoints.
Some of these "unanimous" claims have later been proven to be wrong anyway when the actual documents come out,
e.g..
"the board unanimously appointed Mr Boardman" - **NOT TRUE AUDA**
"This report and its 16 recommendations were considered and unanimously adopted by the auDA Board at its meeting on 10 October 2016" - **NOT TRUE AUDA**
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Hey Lemon, do you have a keyboard...? Tell us your position on direct registrations...Nicole and Ned both made their views public. It would be good to know your opinion, after-all, how will you raise support for your election by members if your silent about hot topics.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Hi Ian,
Will you make any Candidate statement and can you include your position on the proposed extra competing .au extension?
It is of benefit to people to understand your thoughts and how you will speak up for demand members on the Board.
If you are able I would request you seriously consider not standing and that you support the bids of Nicole and Ned as I have done.
If you have issues you think they have not raised and you are not sure where Ned and Nicole stand on them maybe raise it here and get their commitment to act on them for you for you? That is what I have done and I will hold them to it as you also could.
Personal disputes aside things are too serious at auDA ands with the .au namespace. We all must work together and get the issues on the table and fixed.
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
C'mon fellas, you know he would love to comment but as Tim will tell you...actually where is Tim? Anyway, as I was saying he can't because he is now a director and directors have signed away their rights to comment on everything that can or will at some stage in the future be relevant to the inquiry into why auDA is so stuffed.
Lemon will now not like this post to indicate his agreement with the above explanation.
Lemon will now not like this post to indicate his agreement with the above explanation.
Lemon
Top Contributor
First for a bit of the history of direct registrations of which I am sure you are fully aware.
There have been several panels looking into direct registrations; 2007 (against), 2010 (against) and finally 2015 (for). The 2015 panel was 83% for and 17% against. The minority issued a Minority Report, which you would have read. From my reading of the Minority Report there is no recommendation that direct registrations not be implemented, ie they were not against direct registrations. What it did recommend is that a more exhaustive consultation process be undertaken. Perhaps Ned or Nicole can correct me on that. In April 2016 the auDA Board accepted Recommendation 1A after another round of independent market research and consultation. In September 2017 a Policy Review Panel was formed and tasked to develop an implementation policy for direct registration and to review, simplify and consolidate existing published policies. This process is underway.
Now for my personal opinion.
As someone who registered a .com.au in 1998 (which I still hold), I think 10 years is plenty of time to discuss the pros and cons of direct registrations. The internet has changed dramatically and the namespace has grown from 1 million registrations in 2007 to 3 million in 2015. It is now 2017. As Ned has stated in his article on Domainer today "proper process has been followed to date". The horse has bolted and the most important issue is the implementation policy which is being overseen by the Policy Review Panel.
From a marketing and branding point I would be in favour of direct registrations. Next time you see a url on TV think to yourself would it look better as mybrand.com.au or mybrand.au. I prefer the latter.
As a global brand. .au is certainly a stronger brand. For those manufacturers and exporters of Australian goods and services being represented as mybrand.au to the global economy is a clear message that you are Australian.
From a design point of view, I would much prefer the shorter version of the domain name. I have designed many a logo for clients and trying to incorporate ".com.au" into a logo is a challenge, I am sure many of you designers would agree. Aesthetically the shorted domain is much better and easier to balance.
As a domain investor then the issue is debatable. On one side I may potentially double my portfolio value, on the other my portfolio may be devalued. This all depends on the implementation policy. Currently the market is volatile. As you have seen from the current domain sales some players are willing to take a risk in the market others not. Do I sell now or do I hang on. That is the marketplace and that is the risk you take. if you know your history of domaining in .au you would know that OMG took a lot of risks in the early days when policy was a lot tougher and the risks paid off.
Some offer the argument that it is a "double tax" on business. As a business owner, and I run several, $10/year is insignificant to my bottom line. This year ASIC charged my an extra $30 for my company registration, did I complain? My rent went up 5% and running costs have increased greatly. Council rates are through the roof and competition in the online marketplace is tough. Yes I would prefer to get something for free, any businessman would.
As someone who has a portfolio of domains, yes it will cost me a lot of money. I will have to deal with that when it happens and assess the costs vs benefits.
Personally I would have preferred direct registrations not to have come in. My life would have been simpler. However the majority has voted in favour of direct registrations and I have to live with that decision. We do live in a democratic society and no matter how hard you bang your head against the wall it will not fall down.
The continued debate has created uncertainty in the marketplace, what is needed is stability so we can all move forward.
The debate now needs to revolve around implementation.
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Thank you for this answer. Seriously it is good to read. The fact is however "proper process was not followed". I have called Ned out on this today. It is very well documented and will be pulled out later if and when it is needed more officially.
I am amazed at what you have written. I am not sure how many other global extension you have but I have had many over the years. the BS about "shorter will be better for .uk and .nz" is pure BS cut and pasted into Australia shorter .au will be better... less keystrokes..... all proven wrong.
Everyone knows who is driving this push for the extra competing .au extension and this is why we are being told
" FOLLOW THE MONEY". Who will make money from it.... Easy to answer why they have been so active including registered in auDA memberships in both supply and demand to increase their power and voting etc
Those same parties who are pushing it in sell in most cases other extensions. They want the defensive registration money they think they can get as a start and then it will be a balls up over a lot of people dropping .com.au and dropping .net.au etc. It is already happening from people who have been around for a long time also.
Every person buying on the drop auctions has a massive risk now. Most probably do not even know the risk and what the create date means...I sure hope yesterdays big buyers thought through what they did before they did it. As for now I am also off the drop auctions as the risk is far too high as the create date will not beat any pre existing other .au registrants such as .net.au, .id.au etc.
Lets not forget the extra "direct" competing .nz and .uk have failed again... visit these and see what works and what doesnt.. ask yourself why?
www.google.nz
www.google.uk
www.google.co.uk
www.google.co.nz
Lemon
Top Contributor
I have had plenty of global extensions and still do.
My opinion has nothing to do with a shorter is better less keystrokes.
I am looking it from a marketing and branding point of view. I consult to several companies who export their products to the world. In my opinion using .au, to represent their business as Australian is a lot stronger brand than using .com. By creating strong brand awareness you also create value.
It is called speculation. Yesterdays buyers have been in the game a long time, I am sure they are well aware of the risks involved and the potential gains. I am sure they would have responded to the Policy Review Panel issue paper and made their voice heard as should everyone else.
GOOGLE.NZ is conflicted and will probably never be released. I personally am not a fan of the .nz implementation policy
domain_name: google.nz
query_status: 250 Conflicted
source_domain_name_01: google.co.nz
source_domain_name_02: google.geek.nz
source_domain_name_03: google.net.nz
source_domain_name_04: google.org.nz
GOOGLE.UK was registered by google in 2014. You would have to ask them why is not in use, probably because they have too many services linked to the .co.uk extension.
Registered on: 11-Jun-2014
Expiry date: 11-Jun-2018
Last updated: 10-May-2017
I have numerous .co.uk names and I have not yet taken up the option of the direct reg. I have until Jun 2019 before they are released to the general public. I will probably register some by the cut off others I will let drop. Who knows what the take up will be. I am not a fan of the 5 year cut off and Nominet probably made a mistake with implementation and it has had an effect on the growth of the .uk namespace. Mistakes are to be learned from.
Here is an interesting link for you regarding TLDs
https://www.tldwatch.com/tld-summary-table/#
DomainNames
Top Contributor
Lemon thanks. Good post, it helps when people communicate and share their experience, opinions and positions on crucial policy issues so it's really appreciated.
I reviewed this and it's amazing some of the crap there. Most will fail and be gone in 5 years.
"Here is an interesting link for you regarding TLDs https://www.tldwatch.com/tld-summary-table/# "
Many of the new extensions are registered by the Registrars themselves and the majority have no active page or website. They hold many and try to sell them at crazy premium prices with very few takers or they sucker people in with a promo then jack up the renewal prices
https://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/03/uniregistry-backtracks-price-hike-existing-registrations/
https://www.eurodns.com/blog/uniregistry-tld-costs-act-now-pay-less Uniregistry TLD costs soar
What it shows is how greed by Icann ( who make money off every registration) and others from Registries have stuffed up the domain name system globally and so people have gone but to trusting the originals .com, .co.uk, .co.nz etc more than ever.
The majority of those extensions I would never visit out of mistrust of the extension and I am not alone, most are failing as Snoopy has documented fairly well as has Rick https://twitter.com/DomainKing
I reviewed this and it's amazing some of the crap there. Most will fail and be gone in 5 years.
"Here is an interesting link for you regarding TLDs https://www.tldwatch.com/tld-summary-table/# "
Many of the new extensions are registered by the Registrars themselves and the majority have no active page or website. They hold many and try to sell them at crazy premium prices with very few takers or they sucker people in with a promo then jack up the renewal prices
https://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/03/uniregistry-backtracks-price-hike-existing-registrations/
"Last month, the company announced price increases of up to 30x current prices. This caused quite an uproar and put Uniregistry founder Frank Schilling on the defensive. GoDaddy stopped enabling registrations and transfers-in of Uniregistry names as a result."
https://www.eurodns.com/blog/uniregistry-tld-costs-act-now-pay-less Uniregistry TLD costs soar
What it shows is how greed by Icann ( who make money off every registration) and others from Registries have stuffed up the domain name system globally and so people have gone but to trusting the originals .com, .co.uk, .co.nz etc more than ever.
The majority of those extensions I would never visit out of mistrust of the extension and I am not alone, most are failing as Snoopy has documented fairly well as has Rick https://twitter.com/DomainKing
neddy
Top Contributor
The beauty of writing a blog for a number of years is that my views on direct registration are well known.
Proper process was followed by auDA calling a Panel and getting public submissions. Did I like how some aspects of the process? Absolutely not - and that is well documented.
Certain other members of the 2015 Names Panel were hesitant about voting for direct reg without implementation issues being discussed first. However, everyone was assured that there would be a separate industry working group formed which would deal with this. We were told that it was quite possible that direct registration might not be able to implemented fairly, and therefore might not go ahead at all. Members weren't allowed to vote conditionally - it was a "Yes" or "No". So the majority of members voted on the basis of this assurance. Others did not - and that's how the Minority Report came about (page 19). We were firmly against direct registrations. Some people on the "Yes" side actually urged the Chair not to allow the Minority Report! We had to fight to get it included. Nicole will verify that, as will Dr Andrew Christie (who is now also on the Policy Review Panel).
One such working group was enabled by Jo Lim in 2016, but then kyboshed by the Board. Then another independent panel was put together earlier this year, but I've never seen a report from them. And now some two years later, we finally have the PRP looking at it properly.
To back my earlier assertions above, I refer you to the first Minutes of the PRP.
As I have always said, I am a great believer in proper and transparent process being followed. If I end up on the losing side after "the fight has been fought", then I accept that.
Proper process was followed by auDA calling a Panel and getting public submissions. Did I like how some aspects of the process? Absolutely not - and that is well documented.
Certain other members of the 2015 Names Panel were hesitant about voting for direct reg without implementation issues being discussed first. However, everyone was assured that there would be a separate industry working group formed which would deal with this. We were told that it was quite possible that direct registration might not be able to implemented fairly, and therefore might not go ahead at all. Members weren't allowed to vote conditionally - it was a "Yes" or "No". So the majority of members voted on the basis of this assurance. Others did not - and that's how the Minority Report came about (page 19). We were firmly against direct registrations. Some people on the "Yes" side actually urged the Chair not to allow the Minority Report! We had to fight to get it included. Nicole will verify that, as will Dr Andrew Christie (who is now also on the Policy Review Panel).
One such working group was enabled by Jo Lim in 2016, but then kyboshed by the Board. Then another independent panel was put together earlier this year, but I've never seen a report from them. And now some two years later, we finally have the PRP looking at it properly.
To back my earlier assertions above, I refer you to the first Minutes of the PRP.
(3) Direct registration Implementation: John Swinson reiterated that the Panel’s mandate is
to implement direct registration, not to revisit its merits. Ned O’Meara noted that the
auDA Board’s approval was only in-principle and subject to the development of an
acceptable and fair implementation policy. Andrew Christie confirmed Ned O’Meara’s
understanding of the 2015 Names Policy Panel Final Report recommendation to approve
in principle direct registration.
And in case anyone doubts my position on direct registration, this is also from the same Minutes:to implement direct registration, not to revisit its merits. Ned O’Meara noted that the
auDA Board’s approval was only in-principle and subject to the development of an
acceptable and fair implementation policy. Andrew Christie confirmed Ned O’Meara’s
understanding of the 2015 Names Policy Panel Final Report recommendation to approve
in principle direct registration.
(6) ....................
Ned O’Meara reiterated his position that the merits of direct registration needed to be
considered alongside implementation. He queried the cost to existing registrants if they had
to defensively register domains; and if they did so, how there could be real or actual growth in
the .au space? He raised the issue of the Deloitte report being commissioned to see if there
was a “business case” for direct registrations. This has not been released to members. John
Swinson noted that it was open to the Panel to tell the auDA Board that, as a practical matter,
direct registration could not be implemented. However, it is the role of the Panel and the first
task to determine how best to implement direct registration.
Ned O’Meara reiterated his position that the merits of direct registration needed to be
considered alongside implementation. He queried the cost to existing registrants if they had
to defensively register domains; and if they did so, how there could be real or actual growth in
the .au space? He raised the issue of the Deloitte report being commissioned to see if there
was a “business case” for direct registrations. This has not been released to members. John
Swinson noted that it was open to the Panel to tell the auDA Board that, as a practical matter,
direct registration could not be implemented. However, it is the role of the Panel and the first
task to determine how best to implement direct registration.
As I have always said, I am a great believer in proper and transparent process being followed. If I end up on the losing side after "the fight has been fought", then I accept that.
findtim
Top Contributor
we are getting off track here from ians candidate statement
an opinion based on the information you have read, and how you have interpreted it.
now lets get this straight, ian and i have discussed these issues and surprisingly we agree on many, a united board is a good one, an opinionated board is a better one in my view.
we both agree the dubbodentist needs to be asked.
but unfortunately there are many other pieces that have not been considered which are all public knowledge,
this constant discussion just goes around and around best said recently by john swinston " the chicken and the egg"
so i don't want opinions or information, i want the truth and thats what i have been working on, i really don't think we will get to the truth until we get an answer from the dubbodentist !
yep, if he and his mates say " i have the facts and lets do it" then i will drop my sword.
but we do need to get him the facts so just like a board he can make the right decision.
i personally regard words spoken by the ceo of a company to the masses at an agm in high regard, so when our ceo answers a question about case studies at the 2016 agm with regards to deloittes doing case studies with " that specific element of it , yes " , i felt very comfortable about that, pleased in fact. so i am working on ensuring this all happens, we have a scenario where we can't make a decision on yes/no if we don't do how , which leads to cost, which affects yes/no.
whats really important here is we don't miss a step, we must do how and we must do cost which will lead us to "viability" through case studies, and if that is a yes then we go back to implementation which gives us the when.
it would be ill advised to not have the PRP independently go through this process, its important for a panel to be focused, but restricting a panel is a fine line.
have your say to the panel
Submissions close Friday 10 November, 2017 and may be emailed to policy.review@auda.org.au or by post to:
Policy Review Panel
C/O .au Domain Administration
PO Box 18315
Melbourne VIC 3001
i'm going to skip over everything you posted as its an opinion piece and everyone has the right of an opinion.
an opinion based on the information you have read, and how you have interpreted it.
now lets get this straight, ian and i have discussed these issues and surprisingly we agree on many, a united board is a good one, an opinionated board is a better one in my view.
we both agree the dubbodentist needs to be asked.
but unfortunately there are many other pieces that have not been considered which are all public knowledge,
this constant discussion just goes around and around best said recently by john swinston " the chicken and the egg"
so i don't want opinions or information, i want the truth and thats what i have been working on, i really don't think we will get to the truth until we get an answer from the dubbodentist !
yep, if he and his mates say " i have the facts and lets do it" then i will drop my sword.
but we do need to get him the facts so just like a board he can make the right decision.
i personally regard words spoken by the ceo of a company to the masses at an agm in high regard, so when our ceo answers a question about case studies at the 2016 agm with regards to deloittes doing case studies with " that specific element of it , yes " , i felt very comfortable about that, pleased in fact. so i am working on ensuring this all happens, we have a scenario where we can't make a decision on yes/no if we don't do how , which leads to cost, which affects yes/no.
whats really important here is we don't miss a step, we must do how and we must do cost which will lead us to "viability" through case studies, and if that is a yes then we go back to implementation which gives us the when.
it would be ill advised to not have the PRP independently go through this process, its important for a panel to be focused, but restricting a panel is a fine line.
have your say to the panel
Submissions close Friday 10 November, 2017 and may be emailed to policy.review@auda.org.au or by post to:
Policy Review Panel
C/O .au Domain Administration
PO Box 18315
Melbourne VIC 3001
DomainNames
Top Contributor
As I said to the room and the auDA CEO at the 2016 AGM, auDA and the auDA Board needed go back a step.
1. Proper process has not been followed. It will be tendered that the process was flawed and done in such a way to manipulate process.
2. Conflicts of Interest. Certain parties involved in process IMO manipulated the process and the information they put out for their own potential gain. Their may go further into recent auDA minutes where questions of probity have appeared around who should be on the auDA Board and who should be presenting to the auDA Board.
3. The auDA CEO told me Deloitte told him there was no business case for another competing .au extension.
4...... the list goes on
Forget people ramming through an "implementation" and that this is a done deal B.S. they want people to go along with to make it easier for them to get their $$$ in some cases
The auDA CEO at the 2016 AGM said the auDA Board can choose to not go ahead with the competing .au extension and he will follow those instructions. He also said yes he can overall them with cause.
So it comes down to the auDA Board;
1.Who has been on it
2. Who is on it
3. What is their position on Direction Registration and why?
4. What are their potential conflicts of interest. What is their potential financial or personal gain now and in the future for themselves or their associated companies they represent now (or later)
5. How much real personal experience do they have with other extensions as demand registrant or consumer. Do they own .co.uk, .uk or co.nz and .nz for example?
5. Are they from a wholesale registry who will possibly make more money from it?
6. Are they from a Registrar, Reseller, Legal Firm who will potential make more money from it?
7. Are they really representing Demand interests or are their "demand" votes really those of supply parties who also registered via various means more votes via additional demand memberships.
8. Did they in any way solicit and sway proper process via " Yes only votes solicitations" in surveys and voting offering no option to vote no on the lodgement form and making what I believe to be false and misleading claims the .uk and .nz had been " remarkably successful and as such so would the .au be " when the facts prove the extra .uk and .nz have not been "remarkably successful as what was claimed. What did auDA do about this besides record it?
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board/
Current Directors
Name and Class Term
1. Proper process has not been followed. It will be tendered that the process was flawed and done in such a way to manipulate process.
2. Conflicts of Interest. Certain parties involved in process IMO manipulated the process and the information they put out for their own potential gain. Their may go further into recent auDA minutes where questions of probity have appeared around who should be on the auDA Board and who should be presenting to the auDA Board.
3. The auDA CEO told me Deloitte told him there was no business case for another competing .au extension.
4...... the list goes on
Forget people ramming through an "implementation" and that this is a done deal B.S. they want people to go along with to make it easier for them to get their $$$ in some cases
The auDA CEO at the 2016 AGM said the auDA Board can choose to not go ahead with the competing .au extension and he will follow those instructions. He also said yes he can overall them with cause.
So it comes down to the auDA Board;
1.Who has been on it
2. Who is on it
3. What is their position on Direction Registration and why?
4. What are their potential conflicts of interest. What is their potential financial or personal gain now and in the future for themselves or their associated companies they represent now (or later)
5. How much real personal experience do they have with other extensions as demand registrant or consumer. Do they own .co.uk, .uk or co.nz and .nz for example?
5. Are they from a wholesale registry who will possibly make more money from it?
6. Are they from a Registrar, Reseller, Legal Firm who will potential make more money from it?
7. Are they really representing Demand interests or are their "demand" votes really those of supply parties who also registered via various means more votes via additional demand memberships.
8. Did they in any way solicit and sway proper process via " Yes only votes solicitations" in surveys and voting offering no option to vote no on the lodgement form and making what I believe to be false and misleading claims the .uk and .nz had been " remarkably successful and as such so would the .au be " when the facts prove the extra .uk and .nz have not been "remarkably successful as what was claimed. What did auDA do about this besides record it?
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board/
Current Directors
Name and Class Term
- Erhan Karabardak (Domo Digital) Interim Chair Supply Class 28/11/2016 - 2018 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION
- Simon Johnson Demand Class 28/11/2016 - 2018 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION (?- WILL NOT ANSWER - Did he get Supply votes last year so he agreed to support the extra extension? How many .au names does he own? How many real demand class members and .au registrants does he represent? )
- Joe Manariti (SWiM Communications) Supply Class 28/11/2016 - 2018 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION
- George Pongas (AusRegistry) Supply Class 30/11/2015 - 2017 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION
- Grant Wiltshire Demand Class 30/11/2015 - 2017 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION
- Ian Halson Demand Class 26/09/17 - 2017 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION ( PROMISED ANY SUPPLY VOTES FOR REELECTION ?)
- Tim Connell Demand Class 28/11/2016 - 2018 AGM AGAINST THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXPENSION
- Gavin Gibson (Crazy Domains) Supply Class 17/02/2017 - 2017 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXPENSION
- Sandra Hook Independent 19/04/2017 - 19/04/2019 - WHO KNOWS IF SHE IS FOR OR AGAINST?
- Independent Chair Vacant - Erhan Karabardak (Domo Digital) Interim Chair Supply Class 28/11/2016 - 2018 AGM FOR THE COMPETING EXTRA .AU EXTENSION
- Independent Vacant
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Make it simple. Say NO.
Nicole Murdoch
Regular Member
Consider it verified.
What concerns me about the current panel is that Ned even needed to state that the merits need to be addressed. And that needed to be confirmed by Andrew Christie. I know Mr Swinson was not on the names panel but surely he is fully briefed.
