2017 Board Elections

[findtim]

at the table opposite us

LOL, well picked up, to get to the meeting i think they started walking here in 1932 !

tim

 

[neddy]

In terms of putting the spotlight back on auDA, let's not forget that members went to an SGM back on July 31st to fight for communication, transparency and accountability.

This backroom deal put together by certain auDA Directors to move Grant Wiltshire from Demand to Supply is simply unbelievable and audacious. Is this their own private fiefdom that they can do anything with to try and shore up Board votes? FFS, we are a membership based organisation. Nice fellow that he is, but what Supply Class experience has Grant got? Does he understand the trials, tribulations and mechanics of what it is like to be a Registrar?

Remember last year just prior to the AGM? s I wrote this on Domainer:

"The sudden move to have Stuart Benjamin resign as a Demand Class Director and Chairman, and then be contemporaneously appointed an Independent Director (and reappointed as Chairman) was seen as “sneaky” by some. Particularly as it was done only a couple weeks before the AGM.”​

Things have got to change in my opinion.

​

 

[Cheyne]

Though I do have to say, with friends like Cheyne, who needs enemies!

So what you're saying is, if somebody doesn't agree with you and your ideology, they're assumed enemies? You should put that on your candidate statement next time because I think other members needs to know that if ever they don't agree with you their concerns will fall on deaf ears.

Thankfully, as Craig and I joked about last night, we don't have to agree on everything to be mates. We have disagreed on far more important topics in the past yet I have always given my support to Craig in everything he has done in life and I can assure you that will continue regardless of how these elections go.

If auDA is to succeed it needs a board that is truly independent and free from agendas. Ned, you and your cronies have made it clear that you have an axe to grind and an agenda to push, and that will lead to nothing more than further instability and infighting. And as per your statement above, if people don't agree with you they are assumed to be 'enemies' - and I simply do not support that callous disregard for other opinions.

Having read the candidate statements, I hope to see elected:

Demand
Nigel Phair - Excellent credentials and I appreciate the security focus as I think that is something that will be needed.
Ian Halson - Lots of industry experience and whose core objectives I agree with.

Supply
Brian Fitzpatrick - Once again excellent credentials, experience and a focus on security.
Grant Wiltshire - No disrespect to Grant, but this is more by default since there are some things James has said that I don't agree with.

I fully understand that by posting on these forums I am going against the grain and I knew that when I first started posting here, but it has further proven to me and many others who have made contact with me that this industry needs a complete overhaul in order for it to truly succeed. That's going to happen this election, and unless we remove the whole supply and demand nonsense and fill the board with people who are free from financial gain then we may never have a functioning environment that works for everybody's best interests.

 

[Craig Marchant]

Things have got to change in my opinion.

I don’t want to sound like I’m obsessed with ICANN but I really do like their model. Not sure if we will ever get that way here or even if we should however.

I would have thought you would want somebody actually connnected with end users (demand), commercial (not represented really) and industry (supply) on the board.

Each segment of the market has different requirements and pain points problems; they should be represented.

That’s my $1.25

 

[Erwin]

With the 2017 board elections coming up in Oct/Nov I just wanted to remind everyone to renew membership.
Also for NEW MEMBERS if you want a vote at the election you must be a member for AT LEAST 3 MONTHS to vote.
Membership has to be approved at the board meetings, not that we know when they are. (I believe there is one end of May) who knows after that.
I suggest that NEW MEMBERS JOIN NOW to be able to vote.

I personally would like this changed..
You ‘pay’ to become member, you should be able to straight away have a say in matters relating to anything AuDA, none of this waiting around.. why?
In fact, scrap the $20 joining fee & allow all who own .au names have an opinion!

 

[neddy]

So what you're saying is, if somebody doesn't agree with you and your ideology, they're assumed enemies?

Cheyne, you need to read things properly. My comment "Though I do have to say, with friends like Cheyne, who needs enemies!" was a light hearted reference to your comments about Craig. Given your close relationship, they weren't exactly glowing! Craig and I also had a laugh about this.

I don't have a problem if you have a different viewpoint to me and some others on here. In fact, I demonstrated this by inviting you a couple of weeks ago to post a guest article on Domainer. You accepted - and I'm still waiting for it. Just like I gave Jay Daley from NZRS the opportunity to post this guest article.

Your advocacy of other candidates is also fine by me (Ian Halson is a highly credentialed and experienced person).

 

[ttfan]

So what you're saying is, if somebody doesn't agree with you and your ideology, they're assumed enemies? You should put that on your candidate statement next time because I think other members needs to know that if ever they don't agree with you their concerns will fall on deaf ears.

Conveniently misquoted by leaving off the smiley, and using this to jump to conclusions to try and smear Ned's character. This says much more about your character than Ned's, Cheyne.

 

[findtim]

as i said to you via PM, "thanks for posting" , i'm a firm believer in sounding boards and different opinions.

fill the board with people who are free from financial gain

unfortunately a non agenda board of directors is not a reality, it just can't be as with KNOWLEDGE comes agenda and we can not have a board of independents that don't know the industry, for whats its worth the original constitution hasn't really done so badly for an amazing period of time. but now it needs to change.

careful what you wish for: the current board structure is fine IMO, 4 + 4 + 3, IMO 4 +4 +4 tips it over the edge, 2 + 2 + 3 is also impractical and would place us all in a totalitarian era.

i hope he doesn't mind me stating this but just look at george, IMMENSE knowledge of the industry but excluded from the RTP process, its a pure waste of knowledge because of ausreg potential financial gain.

i've recently conducted every interview for a new chair and a new N E D , its been a great process and the information gained on how people have solved organisational problems is amazing. one thing that has really got my attention is " board advisers" , they come in many forms like governance and industry knowledge, that is an opportunity we should look into IMO. its all well and good to use EY , KPMG, PwC etccc but good solid industry advice will always be better. they supply advice but can't vote.

tim

 

[Scott.L]

i've recently conducted every interview for a new chair and a new N E D , its been a great process and the information gained on how people have solved organisational problems is amazing. one thing that has really got my attention is " board advisers" , they come in many forms like governance and industry knowledge, that is an opportunity we should look into IMO. its all well and good to use EY , KPMG, PwC etccc but good solid industry advice will always be better. they supply advice but can't vote. tim

Tim, If you need 'board advisers' why have a board? Attract "Experienced Directors" (I don't care where they are sourced), not this grassroots crap - incapable of making decisions (requiring constant advice whilst remaining indecisive).

 

[Craig Marchant]

i've recently conducted every interview for a new chair and a new N E D , its been a great process and the information gained on how people have solved organisational problems is amazing. one thing that has really got my attention is " board advisers" , they come in many forms like governance and industry knowledge, that is an opportunity we should look into IMO. its all well and good to use EY , KPMG, PwC etccc but good solid industry advice will always be better. they supply advice but can't vote.
tim

I don’t see a problem with having board advisors in place, but it can’t keep being a palm the problem off to somebody else. Somebody has to be willing to pull the trigger and roll with it. Not suggesting that is what you are advocating either, just an observation is all.

I doubt you can get it 100% right every single time, but you learn from it and don’t make the mistake again.

Cheers,
Craig

 

[Cheyne]

Just so it is clear, just now I have phoned Ned and we have had a lengthy chat about this and many other issues.

Thank you for your time Ned and I am glad that we have been able to talk about our points of view, to find that we actually respectfully disagree on very little.

 

[DomainNames]

In terms of putting the spotlight back on auDA, let's not forget that members went to an SGM back on July 31st to fight for communication, transparency and accountability.

This backroom deal put together by certain auDA Directors to move Grant Wiltshire from Demand to Supply is simply unbelievable and audacious. Is this their own private fiefdom that they can do anything with to try and shore up Board votes? FFS, we are a membership based organisation. Nice fellow that he is, but what Supply Class experience has Grant got? Does he understand the trials, tribulations and mechanics of what it is like to be a Registrar?

Remember last year just prior to the AGM? s I wrote this on Domainer:

"The sudden move to have Stuart Benjamin resign as a Demand Class Director and Chairman, and then be contemporaneously appointed an Independent Director (and reappointed as Chairman) was seen as “sneaky” by some. Particularly as it was done only a couple weeks before the AGM.”​

Things have got to change in my opinion.

1. There appear to be a strange way that people move around.
   
2. There remains no improvement of auDA Accountability and Transparency.
3. There remains no response from Cameron Boardman when the last .au wholesale price decrease actually occurred and what further .au wholesale price drops where ties ton increasing registration numbers. I was promised to myself in writing after I put it in writing to him months ago with regular follow ups also to Erhan.
4. Blatant stacking by Supply entities and people with votes in to both supply and demand again has occurred. auDA has done nothing it seems.
   
5. With another $1.8 million spent on "Consultants"" this last financial year by auDA how can people have faith in the current management the money is actually being spent to the benefit of .au domain name consumers? What is the benefit to the paying .au domain name consumers of this massive cost? Over $10 million in total so far paid out by auDA over the years for what actualy change and what actual benefit?
6. 
   
7. The media and various areas of government are digging deeper into auDA and this is going to increase from now on. They will look back at "historical issues".
8. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/29/chair_australias_internet_registry_out/
9. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula
10. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_aud
11. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_domain_administration_ltd_boa
12. Conflicts of interest's of people/ organisations on the auDA Board which still occur which have been written about for 15 years... nothing changes?
13. People resign and new "puppets" are put into places, positions are "branch stacked" Some "puppets" think they are the "puppet master"...Most obviously are not...
14. 

 

[neddy]

Just so it is clear, just now I have phoned Ned and we have had a lengthy chat about this and many other issues.

Thank you for your time Ned and I am glad that we have been able to talk about our points of view, to find that we actually respectfully disagree on very little.

Thanks for the call Cheyne. We do indeed share similar sentiments about a lot of issues (except direct registrations). I'm looking forward to publishing your guest article.

I was grateful that you clarified your stance about ex-bankrupts standing for the Board! One of your previous comments was a bit confusing in this regard. Thank you.

Ned

 

[DomainNames]

as i said to you via PM, "thanks for posting" , i'm a firm believer in sounding boards and different opinions.

unfortunately a non agenda board of directors is not a reality, it just can't be as with KNOWLEDGE comes agenda and we can not have a board of independents that don't know the industry, for whats its worth the original constitution hasn't really done so badly for an amazing period of time. but now it needs to change.

careful what you wish for: the current board structure is fine IMO, 4 + 4 + 3, IMO 4 +4 +4 tips it over the edge, 2 + 2 + 3 is also impractical and would place us all in a totalitarian era.

i hope he doesn't mind me stating this but just look at george, IMMENSE knowledge of the industry but excluded from the RTP process, its a pure waste of knowledge because of ausreg potential financial gain.

i've recently conducted every interview for a new chair and a new N E D , its been a great process and the information gained on how people have solved organisational problems is amazing. one thing that has really got my attention is " board advisers" , they come in many forms like governance and industry knowledge, that is an opportunity we should look into IMO. its all well and good to use EY , KPMG, PwC etccc but good solid industry advice will always be better. they supply advice but can't vote.

tim

Tim auDA does not need any more people who sit on too many other boards adding auDA to their resume or linkedin profiles.

auDA needs people from the Domain Name Industry AND who has a focus on the needs and wants of domain name consumers.

We do not want someone as Chair who is also too heavily involved in other things, other boards and someone who lacks the ongoing effort to talk to auDA members and also to put more focus on .au domain name consumers.

Please no Supply entities putting in a "Chair" to push in their proposed competing .au extension as their focus...

Maybe I should run for Chair...

 

[Cheyne]

I was grateful that you clarified your stance about ex-bankrupts standing for the Board! One of your previous comments was a bit confusing in this regard. Thank you.

Absolutely, and for those playing at home since I am unable to edit my post, for clarity I will post exactly what I said to you over the phone.

Regarding Simon Johnson's proposed amendments of the constitution:

1. In no way, shape or form, do I support the amendments as they are proposed, and it should be voted down.
2. I am hugely disappointed that nobody was consulted prior to this amendment being proposed, and I feel that it would have a much better chance of getting up if stakeholders were consulted regarding the purpose and the wording.
3. I do, however, believe that there should be some form of vetting for board members to assist (not guarantee) the integrity of the board.
4. I have said that I would have been far more comfortable following ASIC's guidelines which state that you must not act as a Director, Secretary or manage a company if you are:
   • are an undischarged bankrupt
     
   • are subject to a personal insolvency agreement or an arrangement under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Bankruptcy Act) that has not been fully complied with
     
   • are subject to a composition under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act and final payment has not been made, or
     
   • have been convicted of various offences such as fraud or offences under company law, such as a breach of your duties as a director or insolvent trading. If you have been convicted of one of these offences you must not manage a company within five years of your conviction. If imprisoned for one of these offences, you must not manage a company within five years after your release from prison.
5. My comments regarding people who have made poor life choices reflect on those who have prior criminal convictions. The purpose, whether understood or not, was to demonstrate that under the proposed wording of this amendment, anybody with so much as a drink driving conviction from back in the 80's could be prevented from being elected to the board. I do not think this is fair nor reasonable. But at the same time, I do believe there needs to be some barriers for entry because of what has happened in other organisations in the past.

Regarding direct registrations, this is something that we do not agree on but as discussed we are both respectful of each others opinion. I have written a lot about this in my article, and even though I know the target demographic of your web site and these forums, I'm still going to have my say because I believe it's important to express our views and allow people to make up their own minds.

And finally, regarding me and my past. If anybody here thinks they are digging up 'dirt' on me that is a secret then you are sadly mistaken. I answered all of this seven years ago, and the only thing that has changed since I made that post is the fact the company I refer to there as a $1.7M annual revenue earner is now a $12M annual revenue earner that has won multiple awards and is still growing.

As others have already said, if you're smart then you will learn from the mistakes and failings of your past. If anybody here has an issue with or vehemently disagrees with something that I have said, send me a message and you can have my phone number or you are welcome to set up a time to come by my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles themed office and we can discuss it, but never question my integrity.

I am unashamedly proud of what I have built and what I have achieved, and I promise that is not due to arrogance but because so many people tried (and failed) to stop me. As I said to Ned on the phone today, this business is my life, my investment, and my future. I care about this industry because I am literally 'all-in' with it. I do not invest anywhere else. I do not have my fingers in any other pies. My attention is squarely on making sure that this industry is well run and free from the bulldust of the past so that our attention can be on the future.

 

[ttfan]

one thing that has really got my attention is " board advisers" , they come in many forms like governance and industry knowledge, that is an opportunity we should look into IMO. its all well and good to use EY , KPMG, PwC etccc but good solid industry advice will always be better. they supply advice but can't vote.tim

While I do agree with this, they can also be a huge waste of money when you have a Board that only picks out the bits of advise that suits them, use this to justify their personal agenda, and refuses to publish the complete report to their members.
While I don't believe you're guilty of this Tim, I do believe others on the Board are, and if you don't speak up against this, you're as guilty as they are (no offense intended).

 

[findtim]

Tim, If you need 'board advisers' why have a board? Attract "Experienced Directors" (I don't care where they are sourced), not this grassroots crap - incapable of making decisions (requiring constant advice whilst remaining indecisive).

you missed my entire point, there is a mountain of industry knowledge out there that the board need for just a short period of time, not 2 YEARS, cherry pick it is my view, the board has the whole plan and we just value add to that.

adding auDA to their resume or linkedin profiles.

i never said that

auDA needs people from the Domain Name Industry

thats what i said.

We do not want someone as Chair who is also too heavily involved in other things, other boards and someone who lacks the ongoing effort to talk to auDA members

reality is $70k doesn't buy you that person,so put forward a resolution to members to increase it to a realistic $ of @ $200k, move independent directors from $40k to $80 and move elected directors to $40k, THEN you will see some changes for the better.
i have EASILY spent $40k of my time in 12 months on auda, EASILY.
no body will say this but here's the real story, being elected is a love job because the money isn't worth it, but we care and its not my business income, without auda i still eat ! for an independent director its their job and you pay for them like you do a lawyer or accountant, no new news there, same for a chair, you get what you pay for.

but us elected cop all the crap and we do it till we can take it no longer and leave where a new person comes in and they cop the crap, WHILST the people throwing the crap don't put their hand up.

sean this is tiresome, are you ever happy?
tim

 

[findtim]

if you don't speak up against this,

i can assure you i DO, and i do see your point, as a director you are constantly bombarded with information and i am sure it is like this on every board in the country, but i'd prefer more information then less, the cost is a "cost of doing business" , as long as it isn't "jobs for the boys i think its valid.

Attract "Experienced Directors" (I don't care where they are sourced)

on top of my role with auda i am also enrolled in the AICD directors course, i couldn't get in till march unfortunately but it is my goal to graduate ( so many do the course and place AICD next to their name but have never graduated as thats a further step )
i am also going to a "new directors AICD meeting this month" on my own time and intend to take on as much as i possible can to gain further knowledge as a director, without sounding "sucky" its my personal commitment to those who voted for me and how i can best gain as much knowledge as possible so i represent the organisation to the utmost most of my ability ( yeh, that sounded political sucky didn't it ! )
bottomline , i can only do my best and i'll admit i'm not the best, but neither was usain bolt when he started.
( skip to 3 mins )

tim

 

[Scott.L]

you missed my entire point, there is a mountain of industry knowledge out there that the board need for just a short period of time, not 2 YEARS, cherry pick it is my view, the board has the whole plan and we just value add to that.

Ok, I should clarify my comment (concern) I wouldnt want you to take it personally.

The culture of Directorship:

An example; 50% of the board is socialized by experienced directors or by directors who have otherwise ‘gown’ into the habit of a particular socialized process of experience, either by those who since departed or by a quorum of graduates.

In this regard, the board is composed of a quorum of directors (socialized by past director experiences) who naturally expect the inexperienced directors to fall in line, lest they are isolated from acquiring essential boardroom skills or relationships.

The problem is, when a board has lost its equity of righteous experience to compose its own attitude (sense of righteousness) it begins to fracture into ‘echo chambers’ leading to, conflict, unexpected outcomes, ill-conceived projects, or indecision. (requiring outsourced deciders regardless of feedback)

Boardrooms must be fit for purpose in their duty, deflecting decision making to 3rd parties rather than taking ownership of a decision defeats the purpose of a Directors election to the board.

a. A director is chosen and elected to best represent either demand class or supply class interests. (current understanding)
b. A director is chosen because of various reasons, technical competency, repute, industry experience, or management skills (leadership quality, Vision…)
c. A Director is chosen to make decisions in the best interest of the company and its members because that Director should have acquired an intimate understanding of the industry. (hence why we elect them)

Currently, Members are required to select 4 supply candidates + 4 Demand candidates from a very limited industry pool of knowledge and experience at a board level.

Causing;
a. grassroots management to occur.
b. Perception management issues.
c. Transiency.
d. Social problems.
e. Inability to compose constructive resolutions.

Our (Members) options.
a. Reduce board capacity
b. Increase Board quality (experience) requiring increased remuneration.
c. Propose a new boardroom model.

At the current level of induction to the board, both supply and demand class pools are going to dry up, possibly promoting inexperience people to the board as a result.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe it is only fair and reasonable to have inexperienced directors on the board but I disagree that it should compose 50% or more. (includes socialized graduates) when that occurs, the board has lost its ability to make decisions for itself as industry representatives and fails to regulate the industry effectively.

Something to think about.

 

[findtim]

scottL , i think you nailed it, i'm with you 100% especially the "dry up" bit , thats where increasing auda's profile and membership base. can help.

from a very limited industry pool

just look at supply, i'm sorry but the candidates just don't stack up do they ! , "supply has left the building.........."

at least we have some quality in demand, and others on the surrounds for the future, robert, luke, shane, sean, andrew, YOU, and like an academy award speech i'm sorry if i missed you

what i am loving about this present conversations is that its like marriage equality " everyone is coming out " LOL , there is a new openness happening so lets all go the positive.

a boss of mine had a sign on his door which was never closed but just a jar, it said " have you come with a solution or are you part of the problem ?
i have seen MANY staff turn on their heels and walk back to their work and fix their problems based on reading that sign. I NEVER walked into that room without a solution.

tim