2017 Board Elections

[Shane]

frankly i'm amazed no one has said congratulations to ian !!!

Does this count?
http://www.domainer.com.au/some-people-cant-be-trusted/

 

[snoopy]

you just can't go past ians 20 years in the industry and frankly i'm amazed no one has said congratulations to ian !!!

snoopy's got it right, which was proven last year, a 3 pack doesn't work, its plainly obvious demand members need to be united just like any organisation.

domainnames i don't need to stand aside, you just have to get more votes then me, simple.

tim

What sort of congratulations would be expected? Shane was put forward, then there is is the same issue coming up yet again of someone else putting their hand up without a word being spoken. We should congratulate this? If this keeps going on it is simply going to cost seats because the votes will be split. AUDA must be loving this.

 

[findtim]

what you aren't seeing is that there were many candidates, who is to say there were not others that also had more qualifications then shane, and i have mentioned to shane there were others.

perhaps a humphreyBB, long serving telco director with a folio on domains that never posts on dnt and fly's under the radar but has a wealth of governance and domain experience? being on dnt NOR being a member of auda is a criteria for being a director.

then neither shane nor ian would have been appointed ! but what you have right now is someone who is actually interested in the domain world with a lot to give and you'll decide what happens next.

so lets go with letting it not happen again, whilst it was mentioned at the sgm nobody could have predicted a vacancy occurring soon after.

 

[snoopy]

what you aren't seeing is that there were many candidates, who is to say there were not others that also had more qualifications then shane, and i have mentioned to shane there were others.

It is about having a united front. In it not about what AUDA decided.

It is about people "breaking away" and deciding they will nominate anyway. As I said the end result will be that it is much harder to hold seats and plays into AUDA's interests.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Was Ian asked to pay for his Police check?

 

[Scott.L]

Ian's appointment is very surprising not because I do not think he is suitably qualified but because I did not have an opportunity to support his decision to run for the position. Shane gave us opportunity to vote for him, we could support him, and in the same way Nicole has engaged this little corner of the world and she has given us opportunity to support her. Its only normal to engage those who will support you, unless Ian's appointment is intended to a be temporary position supported only by the board, and that of itself would appear to be a disingenuous appointment.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

...a board elected director has a different criteria to a member voted director, we have to look at the skills and past experience not just popularity...

tim

Who fed you that BS?

That's your problem, you believe everything some people tell you.

You have been played again.

And the same tune will be sung for the next appointments (Chair, independent).

 

[findtim]

how have i been played when a long term demand class person/member and dnt member is now a demand class director?
i didn't pick the people who nominated or would you like to blame for that as well?

That's your problem, you believe everything some people tell you.

i can say that is so far from the truth pluto becomes a planet again.

i've been told today by various people in different terms i'm doing myself no favours by posting here, but isn't this communication what you want from a director?

i'm very comfortable with my decision based on the candidates who applied,

.........appear to be a disingenuous appointment.

its not, it simply can't be as all knew they would go to election and YOU will decide.

scottL you posted the balance chart, well we restored balance as quickly as we could, however slow it was !

now, i'm sorry, but i have to go do some work.
tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

It's really simple Tim, you get told the terms of reference and they give you the freedom to choose within those reference points.

Here's the kicker; the terms of reference are BS. You are playing their game on their field at their kick off time, when you have the ability to choose what game you are playing, field and timings etc.

At the moment you are their player and you only get to choose which direction you are playing.

And you are not alone. There's several people who have been influenced to run for the board in order to split the demand side vote.

 

[snoopy]

Here's the kicker; the terms of reference are BS.

Agree. The constitution must be changed. AUDA directors & the CEO should have no say in it. The nonsense started right from word go,

"Applicants with demonstrated company director experience are particularly encouraged to nominate."

Where are the terms of reference? How did those terms align with Dr Richards being previously appointed?

There's several people who have been influenced to run for the board in order to split the demand side vote.

Yes, this is what we must avoid. People saying "Hey John you'd make a a great candidate, you should run!", when the motivation is to screw things up for other candidates.

 

[findtim]

Agree. The constitution must be changed. AUDA directors & the CEO should have no say in it.

agree, thats why we have annual elections so its a members vote, its just that bit about mid term departures is not working, thats why i will be supporting constitutional change, along with the PRP we can all hope to see some light at the end of the tunnel.
......... and i hate typing like a politician !

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Mid term departures are not the issue, it's the bogus criteria you are applying.

You seem to be avoiding the issue, like a politician.

 

[findtim]

i'm not avoiding anything,
19.7 Casual Vacancies
a. Subject to clauses 15.3 and 19.1, any vacancy occurring in the Board whether by death, resignation or otherwise shall be filled within three (3) calendar months of the vacancy occurring (or such longer period as the Board may otherwise resolve) by the remaining Directors. The natural person filling the vacancy will be appointed for the remainder of the term of office of the Director who created the vacancy.

so if i said " geez i like shane he's popular and he got the most votes at the last election " ( which i did ) taking into count the scottL table, what would your conclusion be?

i'd be able to say " i voted for shane, oh well, bummer " , no, i went through a proper process and ian was elected by the board as per the constitution.

tim

 

[snoopy]

What is the criteria Tim?

In the question not clear?

People are saying the criteria being used is bogus.

• Last time AUDA avoided appointing Shane by using the wrong criteria (criteria for independent directors),
• This time they talked about company director experience.

Both seem to be targeted at the non-appointment of Shane.

Where is the criteria?

 

[findtim]

basically knowledge of where the industry was at.
simply a combination of questions relating to domain industry experience, online business experience, bricks and mortar experience, board experience, committee experience, how they see auda now, how they'd like to see auda, their opinion on what they would bring to auda as an asset to the board, what they thought of the sgm, what they think of the .au, what they think of the rtp, what they felt the most important challenges auda has right now and then an open ended " please ask us anything" .

and before you start dissecting, the questions were created by me to help build a picture of overall knowledge from the candidates NOT how they would vote at the board table.

tim

 

[Bacon Farmer]

....so if i said " geez i like shane he's popular and he got the most votes at the last election " ( which i did ) taking into count the scottL table, what would your conclusion....

tim

The correct course of action.

Where do you get off making up criteria for a member elected position!

Where in the constitution does it say you should do that?

Please apply the same criteria to yourself and recommend to yourself that you are not up to scratch and resign.

 

[findtim]

OMG, where in the constitution are the questions that should be asked?
PLEASE forward me YOUR suggestion of what i should have done, i am REALLY interested to find out where i went wrong.

tim

 

[snoopy]

basically knowledge of where the industry was at.
simply a combination of questions relating to domain industry experience, online business experience, bricks and mortar experience, board experience, committee experience, how they see auda now, how they'd like to see auda, their opinion on what they would bring to auda as an asset to the board, what they thought of the sgm, what they think of the .au, what they think of the rtp, what they felt the most important challenges auda has right now and then an open ended " please ask us anything" .

and before you start dissecting, the questions were created by me to help build a picture of overall knowledge from the candidates NOT how they would vote at the board table.

tim

I think they are reasonable questions if someone is told they have to think up some questions.

But it really comes down to the whole thing being messed up & wrong. Directors asking people questions to appoint other directors when it should be "what would members want".

I can only imagine the questions that were thought up for previous appointments given some seemed to have known very little about the class they supposedly stand for.

 

[findtim]

what they felt the most important challenges auda has right now

snoopy: that was consistently answered as "what would members want" , given another day i would have added that one.
followed up by their ability to ask questions of us and that thus resulted in further questions by them once they had more knowledge.
tim

 

[DomainNames]

This is what it comes down to in my view.

If domainers want seats at the table then it needs to be a combined voice, not this kind of shenanigans again where someone else decides to run anyway.

With this kind of thing is going on we have a much lower chance of holding seats. Shall we throw in a few more candidates at the AGM and they can get 12 votes each?

http://www.domainer.com.au/some-people-cant-be-trusted/