What's new

auDA CMWG - I've applied to join

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Sean: I'm not even 100% sure of who it was, and if it was who I think it was, I don't know their name - they were sitting on the periphery, and I'm not sure they announced their name - we've already had one person (James Deck) wrongly named, I'm not going to perpetuate this by wrongly naming others.

Peter: So noone seems to know this mysterious person ?.... OK Peter... Was the room so filled with people they cannot be identified....?

Easy way to clear it up is to name them? Why are people hiding who it was and what they said?

Maybe the auDA audio recording of the meeting will it be released or will this be destroyed now?
https://www.itwire.com/strategy/83762-auda-panel-moves-to-delete-record-of-past-meetings.html
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Sean: I'm not even 100% sure of who it was, and if it was who I think it was, I don't know their name - they were sitting on the periphery, and I'm not sure they announced their name - we've already had one person (James Deck) wrongly named, I'm not going to perpetuate this by wrongly naming others.

Peter: Did you help knock back the new CMWG applications today? Why and on what grounds?

Did you make any comments about the applicants?

Why would you, Chris Leptos auDA Chair ,others at auDA and some on the CMWG not welcome more experienced real knowledgeable domain name industry stakeholders to be engaged and to be part of the CMWG?
 
Last edited:

Peter T

Member
Given every other person who held the microphone at the meeting was asked to identify themselves and you were at the meeting, and it was recorded, then it's strange the identity of this person who was clearly anti domainer can't be worked out.
In a way, do you really blame them for not wanting to identify themselves? There appears to be a lynch mob baying for their blood.

You're against the domain monetisation rule (which seems to be up for discussion again) aren't you? And if you are, one might call you anti domainer right?
Huh? Am I against domain monetisation? Is it up for discussion again? anti-domainer? So sorry to disappoint you, I'm none of the above.

Even if I was anti-domainer, which I'm not, I have the integrity to separate my own beliefs, objectives, aspirations and expectations regarding the organisation, from those who I'm representing.

What you've written feels like a thinly veiled attempt to attack my integrity?
The CMWG has no objections to board members attending? Peter, do you speak for the entire CMWG? Are you sure all CMWG members had no objections? Did you ask them? Sean, were you happy for the directors to attend?
No, I don't speak for the entire CMWG. The CMWG works by consensus; we'll all agree to certain things, we'll also disagree to certain things - that comes with the territory of having such a diverse group of people - it's great that we don't suffer from groupthink.

Am I sure that no CMWG members had no objections? I'm quite sure that none voiced their objection.

Sorry but just because a Director is a Member does not mean it's appropriate for them to be involved in the meeting. It clearly isn't.

Let's be very clear, Director input at the meeting is interference.

Directors being called upon to speak and give their interpretation of issues.... is influence and therefore interference.

Directors sitting at a table discussing group questions with other participants is influence and therefore interference.

The fact you organised it and are defending it is a serious issue.
Really serious? Or a little serious?

If directors didn't attend, then the complaint would be that directors don't care about the issue, and don't believe that the issue is worth spending their time on. After all, earlier in this thread you called the CMWG a
a boring (non issue) working group
If it's a "non issue working group", does it really matter who attends? If it's a "non issue working group", then, surely it's not a serious issue as you say.

If it is serious, then obviously you've contradicted yourself calling it a
a boring (non issue) working group

Wanting to please the board is an issue, they clearly had no problem seeing the results from the first one. You should be wanting to please the members.
I am working to please the members. I'm doing this in a completely voluntary capacity - what have you done in the past week for auDA members?

Are you concerned that the terms of reference for the CMWG have changed?

Are you concerned that the majority of members who will vote on the new membership model are foreign employees of supply side members? (it'd be good to hear your opinion)
From what perspective? From an auDA member perspective: yes.
From a CMWG perspective: As we've said, both at the SGM, and Monday's forum - operational issues, such as current membership, are not in the groups terms of reference.
Ok enough brick bats, here's a bouquet, thanks for coming on here and answering our questions.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
Huh? Am I against domain monetisation? Is it up for discussion again? anti-domainer? So sorry to disappoint you, I'm none of the above.

Even if I was anti-domainer, which I'm not, I have the integrity to separate my own beliefs, objectives, aspirations and expectations regarding the organisation, from those who I'm representing.

So are you acting as an individual (not anti domainer) or as a director of Internet Australia (who are anti domainer)?

No, I don't speak for the entire CMWG. The CMWG works by consensus; we'll all agree to certain things, we'll also disagree to certain things - that comes with the territory of having such a diverse group of people - it's great that we don't suffer from groupthink.

Yourself and Keith are both directors of Internet Australia right. Do you represent the groupthink of that organisation or yourselves as individuals.

Am I sure that no CMWG members had no objections? I'm quite sure that none voiced their objection.

So did you consult or ask the opinion of the other members before inviting the directors to attend?

The board doesn't invite members to attend and share their views at their meetings, so why is it appropriate in this situation. It's not and it's most probably intimidating for members who aren't into groupthink.

If directors didn't attend, then the complaint would be that directors don't care about the issue, and don't believe that the issue is worth spending their time on.

Said nobody. That's an imaginary argument to justify your invitation for the board to influence the outcome.

After all, earlier in this thread you called the CMWG a "non issue working group".

If it's a "non issue working group", does it really matter who attends? If it's a "non issue working group", then, surely it's not a serious issue as you say.

If it is serious, then obviously you've contradicted yourself calling it a "non issue working group"

You have snipped my quote about the CMWG originally being what I called a "non issue working group". Yeah on that issue I call your integrity into question. The issue as you well know is that the original terms of reference were about a "Consultation Model" not a "Membership Model".

As the working group is now working on critical issues and is making recommendations to the board on issues such as the "Membership Model" and in time the Constitution, it should have it's membership group dissolved and issue a new call for interested parties to be part of the group.

I'm sure there's actual auDA members who would be interested to be a part of making recommendations about the new Membership Model of their organisation.

I am working to please the members. I'm doing this in a completely voluntary capacity - what have you done in the past week for auDA members?

It appears you are working to please the board. I'd hazard a guess that you've talked to them more in the last week, than members. Are you hoping for another directorship?

From a CMWG perspective: As we've said, both at the SGM, and Monday's forum - operational issues, such as current membership, are not in the groups terms of reference.

So issues, "such as current membership, are not in the groups terms of reference." but making recommendations on a new Membership Model are?

Can you point out in the terms of reference any mention of making recommendations on a new Membership Model is https://www.auda.org.au/assets/CMWG-ToRs-May2018-FINAL.pdf

Consultation Model does not mean Membership Model.
 

joshrowe

Top Contributor
I hear Chris Leptos took it upon himself to knock back every application today at the CMWG / auDA Board meeting...

Chris Leptos seems to have it in for Josh Rowe still with another apparent smear tirade attempt about Josh....and possible unusual comments about the people who applied to join the CMWG.

I was told that my application to the CMWG was knocked back. This was a surprise, as I have never applied to be part of the CMWG.

I have contributed via both public forums, and intend to continue contributing constructively in this way.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
 

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
10,979
Messages
91,777
Members
2,061
Latest member
domino111

Industry and community links

Top