auDA Foundation Review – Discussion Paper

[joshrowe]

The following message was emailed to auDA members earlier today:

--

29 November 2011

The auDA Foundation is a charitable trust that was established by auDA in 2005. Its general objectives are to promote and encourage education and research activities that will enhance the utility of the Internet for the benefit of the Australian community.

auDA staff currently process grant applications and the Foundation typically offers grants in the range of $5,000 to $20,000 to not-for-profit organisations, students and research institutions.

There have been five grant rounds since 2006, totalling $1,286,338 in funding to 72 projects.

The auDA Board is conducting a review of the Foundation. The purpose of the review is to:

- evaluate the effectiveness and reach of the auDA Foundation grants,

- evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the auDA Foundation operations, and

- provide recommendations to the auDA board about what changes (if any) should be made to the auDA Foundation charter and the operations.

auDA have drafted a Discussion Paper to set out the current situation and invite comments and suggestions for change.

The closing date for submissions is Monday 16 January 2012.

More information is available at http://www.auda.org.au/about/foundationreview

 

[soj]

Josh - thought you had disappeared.

Without wishing to hijack your thread, I just wanted to remind you that a response to this would be nice:

http://www.dntrade.com.au/auda-board-elections-t3630.html?p=28435#post28435

Cheers, Ned

 

[DavidL]

Thanks for letting everyone know, Josh

 

[DomainNames]

The following message was emailed to auDA members earlier today:

--

29 November 2011

The auDA Foundation is a charitable trust that was established by auDA in 2005. Its general objectives are to promote and encourage education and research activities that will enhance the utility of the Internet for the benefit of the Australian community.

auDA staff currently process grant applications and the Foundation typically offers grants in the range of $5,000 to $20,000 to not-for-profit organisations, students and research institutions.

There have been five grant rounds since 2006, totalling $1,286,338 in funding to 72 projects.

The auDA Board is conducting a review of the Foundation. The purpose of the review is to:

- evaluate the effectiveness and reach of the auDA Foundation grants,

- evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the auDA Foundation operations, and

- provide recommendations to the auDA board about what changes (if any) should be made to the auDA Foundation charter and the operations.

auDA have drafted a Discussion Paper to set out the current situation and invite comments and suggestions for change.

The closing date for submissions is Monday 16 January 2012.

More information is available at http://www.auda.org.au/about/foundationreview

The "auDA foundation" should be scraped totally and auDA should focus on what it's core initial role was .....to administer the .au namespace within it's budget and agreed terms of federal government engagement etc.

It's great some worthy causes got a benefit from the free money grants but it is not auDA's role to be doing it.

if any organisation wants free money or grants they are more than likely all available via Federal, State and Local government grants. Not Grants from a " not for profit" which auDA is.

if auDA is making too much and needs to give some away to balanace the books each here maybe reduced registration auDA fee's could assist?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Unfortunately the scope of this review is very limited and doesn't give the public scope to make broader comment - my thought is that this is very deliberate.

I encourage everyone to make their views known and respond to this.

The biggest test will be whether the Westlake review is opened up for public comment. I am told that this report will be published on the auDA website next month or January. This is one report that everyone should respond to if we are given the opportunity.

 

[DomainNames]

Unfortunately the scope of this review is very limited and doesn't give the public scope to make broader comment - my thought is that this is very deliberate.

I encourage everyone to make their views known and respond to this.

The biggest test will be whether the Westlake review is opened up for public comment. I am told that this report will be published on the auDA website next month or January. This is one report that everyone should respond to if we are given the opportunity.

reminds me of a movie quote by Morgan Freeman " when I asked for your opinon I didn't actually mean for you to give it"

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

reminds me of a movie quote by Morgan Freeman " when I asked for your opinon I didn't actually mean for you to give it"

You are a wordsmith mate

 

[DavidL]

I would like to see where all these organisations that have received the grants in previous years are now. Did the grants have a lasting impact or was the money spent with no legacy?

 

[David Goldstein]

Hi all,

Re David Lye's comments: it would be very worthwhile to evaluate the success or otherwise of projects funded under the foundation. It is becoming more popular for evaluation of funding spent to have evaluation of some sort attached to it. But it is also a cost to the grant recipient and so the grants would need to factor in the time taken by the recipient in evaluating their project. In other words, grants would need to be higher.

As for those such as Domain Names who say auDA shouldn't be involved in philanthropy - this is a very negative, narrow view that shows a non-existent knowledge of philanthropy. It is important that companies be involved in philanthropy and the last Coalition government actively encouraged philanthropic endeavours. Of course, if we go back to auDA's initial core role, we could also go back to the rules of one domain name per business if you want.

David

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Philanthropy is for the private sector not quasi government organisations such as Auda.

 

[David Goldstein]

A limited knowledge of philanthropy Bacon Farmer

 

[DomainNames]

David "Philanthropy" is not giving away other people's money!

auDA has a budget and needs to show exactly where their expenditure goes and reduce costs and expenditure to stay within the budget.

No answers have been given still on the very high auDA travel spending etc

In your role in working for auDA ( scraping other people's news stories and putting them on the auDA new website) http://www.auda.org.au/domain-news/ do you do it free or do you receive a benefit be it finacial or other from that auDA role? It would be good to see more domain sales and market news included in your news scrapes if possible also? There have been several over $100,000 domain name sales would this be worthy news showing the importance of a good .com.au name etc?

David would you support the set up of an auDA Ombudsman? If not why not?

 

[Bacon Farmer]

A limited knowledge of philanthropy Bacon Farmer

How would you know from my statement of opinion?

So is Auda a charity? Is being a charity one of it's roles?

This isn't an argument about whether philanthropy is good or bad it's about a quasi govt organisation using funds not in keeping with it's role.

On top of this misuse of funds, the people who are funding it have not even been asked whether it's a good idea.

It really sounds like empire building and a misuse of funds.

Should the department of transport use a portion of my drivers license fee to pay for grants for do gooders to research something? Yeah I don't think so.

If I want to donate to charity let me make that decision and not big brother.

 

[DavidL]

As for those such as Domain Names who say auDA shouldn't be involved in philanthropy - this is a very negative, narrow view that shows a non-existent knowledge of philanthropy

Of course, if we go back to auDA's initial core role, we could also go back to the rules of one domain name per business if you want.

Two completely different issues. auDA's core role is to maintain a credible, fair Australian domain space - policy (such as the old one domain per business rule) is central to this - giving cash to charities is not.

This isn't an argument about whether philanthropy is good or bad it's about a quasi govt organisation using funds not in keeping with it's role.

Exactly

 

[brettf]

If auDA was a private or public company they would generally be responsible to shareholders in terms of the level of philanthropy that was deemed acceptable. And as they were presumably generating profits to fund those programs, then what they deem fit to do with those funds I have absolutely no problem with.

auDA however isn't a private or public company. It's effectively a monopoly, running under a letter of authorization from the government. It's a not-for-profit, and like most NFP's they have little business sense, and absolutely no problem spending up money that they don't have to actually work for like businesses in the real world.

The notion of the foundation was never voted on by the members, in fact I find it very interesting that we have to have these pretty onerous panel processes to decide the smallest change in policy, but was there ever a panel convened to discuss the formation of the foundation, or the auCD project, or the ongoing funding of the auCD project once the seed funding was exhausted? Seems like a set of rules for one thing, and then a completely different set for something else.

Something else I'd put out there, items like life memberships and remuneration for directors and the like are all things that members have voted on at AGM's and EGM's. Why these things and not foundation/auCD etc. I know the technical answer is going to be, well they were changes to the constitution so therefore they had to be voted on. In which case I'd ask, can you point out the section in the constitution that deals with giving money away.

So should auDA be pouring money into these projects? My own view is clearly that they shouldn't - but that's completely subjective. On the other hand rather than forming a 'review' that is essentially looking for a tick for what they are doing, the membership of auDA really should be being asked:

As members of auDA, do you support:

a) Ongoing grant funding provided by auDA to recipients

if yes,

b) Collection of 25c on every com/net domain transaction to fund this activity.

If the community generally accepts this, then I'm okay with the program. Though somehow I suspect I know what the results of this type of vote would be.

 

[DomainNames]

If auDA was a private or public company they would generally be responsible to shareholders in terms of the level of philanthropy that was deemed acceptable. And as they were presumably generating profits to fund those programs, then what they deem fit to do with those funds I have absolutely no problem with.

auDA however isn't a private or public company. It's effectively a monopoly, running under a letter of authorization from the government. It's a not-for-profit, and like most NFP's they have little business sense, and absolutely no problem spending up money that they don't have to actually work for like businesses in the real world.

The notion of the foundation was never voted on by the members, in fact I find it very interesting that we have to have these pretty onerous panel processes to decide the smallest change in policy, but was there ever a panel convened to discuss the formation of the foundation, or the auCD project, or the ongoing funding of the auCD project once the seed funding was exhausted? Seems like a set of rules for one thing, and then a completely different set for something else.

Something else I'd put out there, items like life memberships and remuneration for directors and the like are all things that members have voted on at AGM's and EGM's. Why these things and not foundation/auCD etc. I know the technical answer is going to be, well they were changes to the constitution so therefore they had to be voted on. In which case I'd ask, can you point out the section in the constitution that deals with giving money away.

So should auDA be pouring money into these projects? My own view is clearly that they shouldn't - but that's completely subjective. On the other hand rather than forming a 'review' that is essentially looking for a tick for what they are doing, the membership of auDA really should be being asked:

As members of auDA, do you support:

a) Ongoing grant funding provided by auDA to recipients

if yes,

b) Collection of 25c on every com/net domain transaction to fund this activity.

If the community generally accepts this, then I'm okay with the program. Though somehow I suspect I know what the results of this type of vote would be.

Wise words. Seems to be a common thread the only people who want the auDA foundation to continue are those involved in it or those who get the free money it gives.

the term "empire building" has also been a common thread in many comments on this forum and on other forums.

an auDA Ombudsman is the next step needed for the .au namespace to be managed with full transparency. It would bring many benefits to all including auDA. http://www.icann.org/en/ombudsman/ Hopefully auDA will openly suggest and support this auDA Ombudsman asap.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Wise words. Seems to be a common thread the only people who want the auDA foundation to continue are those involved in it or those who get the free money it gives.

the term "empire building" has also been a common thread in many comments on this forum and on other forums.

an auDA Ombudsman is the next step needed for the .au namespace to be managed with full transparency. It would bring many benefits to all including auDA. http://www.icann.org/en/ombudsman/ Hopefully auDA will openly suggest and support this auDA Ombudsman asap.

I am hopeful that this may be contained in the Westlake Report which I am told will be released shortly.

The current Registrant Review process is a failure because there was no industry consultation at the time it was set up - that is why no one has the confidence to use it. A truly independent Ombudsman may be a good alternative, but this would only work if it was set up properly and was truly independent.

As for the review of the foundation, we should all make submissions and express our views. I share many of the concerns with the foundation, including the lack of transparency and accountability.

When you look at the auDA Constitution the obvious question is how does the foundation advance the objects of auDA ? In light of this, on what basis was the creation of the foundation justified ? How does object 3.1(c) (which is - to ensure a cost effective administration of the .au ccTLD and its sub-domains;) reconcile with the operation of foundation ?

As many of you have correctly pointed out, this is not a debate about whether charity is a good thing.

Lets get these submissions in writing!

 

[acheeva]

Integrating philanthropy into everyday business is FANTASTIC & at the risk of spamming I will give a plug to www.b1g1giving.com who are leading the way in that regards

HOWEVER Australia is still losing ground to Singapore as the regions "smart" capital

imo AUDA is in the internet business and (particularly given its non-profit status) should be devoting any surplus they derive to assisting in the development of "smart" systems that allow us to better manage our use of the internet

The internet is a major international industry where our geographic isolation is not a factor & does not impede our potential for domination

Without meaning to be derogatory to our innovators, Wikileaks is our most recognised internet achievement

I am sure we can do better!

 

[brettf]

imo AUDA is in the internet business and (particularly given its non-profit status) should be devoting any surplus they derive to assisting in the development of "smart" systems that allow us to better manage our use of the internet

auDA is in the business of managing the .au namespace. The end.

auDA shouldn't be generating surplus. If they do generate a small surplus in a given FY then it should be absorbed back in the subsequent year, slightly over or slightly under, doesn't matter as they maintain a full 12 months of opex as cash reserve, which is an altogether different discussion to have.