What's new

auDA gives 6 days notice of Members Forum

DomainNames

Top Contributor
They have misquoted the government. I told them and they refused to change it.

Scare tactics.

No members can vote to change the member model before the AGM in November 2018 ( auDA CEO said this is the expected date at a CMWG meeting) so why the last minutes rush with 6 days notice and this is the ONLY forum planned?
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Everyone is invited to email your questions or even submissions of other potential membership models in advance asap:

Email: engagement@auda.org.au
Email Subject Line: attention CMWG Forum questions in advance for meeting discussion
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
i have a hall pass.

tim

Hey Tim,

Have the auDA Board discussed the trolling of the 3 SGM organisers in attempts to discredit and pressure them on twitter by people possibly linked to current auDA management?

Did the auDA Board receive any letters of complaint and will it be listed on the auDA Board public minutes for stakeholders to become aware of such dirty tactics?

What will the auDA Board do if it is someone linked to auDA and/ or the Board?
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
auDA has apparently cancelled this weeks CMWG meeting scheduled to start in less than 90 minutes time!

The CMWG are yet to receive contact from auDA about it.. yet the meeting is Chaired by the auDA CEO Cameron Boardman and 2 other auDA staff members Will Bond and Alister Paterson.

NO notice to CMWG members!

1 member was apparently told only after they contacted auDA for the detail of the models, today's agenda and forum agenda early next week. That CMWG member now said they want the forum cancelled and they are fuming of the mess.

The CMWG now has suggested to auDA again the forum be postponed.

Let me be very clear this CMWG has not been fully provided the materials we have asked for and the proposed membership models are not even ready to go to any forum. There is a massive lack of detail yet on the potential models.

Was it a last minute rush job by auDA Management to tick off an auDA box and give the Government the impression everything was ok before the SGM in 4 weeks? www.Grumpier.com.au

I can assure everyone some of the CMWG members where very keen to make this work. We provided a lot of materials to auDA but it seemingly is not really being reviewed or considered by auDA. (CIRA model is free, open to all registrants etc)

It may be there is another agenda at play by auDA Management and membership models they themselves want.

I look to the PRP and CRC and just some of the people who resigned off them with complaints

Scott Long maybe you where right.. the CMWG might be another auDA CRC.

Luke Summers you where right about the auDA PRP ( Policy Review Panel)
 

Attachments

  • long_auda_resignation_letter(5).pdf
    0 bytes · Views: 1
  • Resignation-from-the-2017-Policy-Review-Panel(12).pdf
    85.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

snoopy

Top Contributor
The CMWG are yet to receuie any contact from auDA about it.. yet the meeting is Chaired by the auDA CEO Cameron Boardman and 2 other auDA staff members Will Bond and Alister Paterson.

There is the problem with the working group, it is run by auDA, not auDA members. The is top down leadership where one person hopes to control the whole thing.

The CMWG now has suggested to auDA again the forum be postponed.

Lets see if auDA CEO orders it to go ahead in his typical top down style, maybe Cameron can even chair the meeting and tell us about the models he wrote?

Was it a last minute rush job by auDA Management to tick off an auDA box and give the Government the impression everything was ok before the SGM in 4 weeks?

Exactly, it is about ticking off boxes, claiming that the constitutional changes were member led, they are not.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
It's these inconvenient little things like constitutions and members who are impeding the Mentone libs er ah .....auDA’s decision making and contributing to ongoing organisational instability.

 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Ironic that auDA will spend tens of thousands of members money to try and get a meeting date extended for 3 months yet when it is reversed they think it is ok to give members 6 days notice.

That is a very good point! It may come in useful at some stage. The last judge would not be impressed if he knew probably auDA pleads some case then does the opposite themselves...
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
In my view auDA is wasting its time arguing whether it can legally give members 6 days notice of meeting or not. As usual auDA ignores the optics of their decision and argue instead on the basis that they can legally get away with their actions.
 

joshrowe

Top Contributor
In my view auDA is wasting its time arguing whether it can legally give members 6 days notice of meeting or not. As usual auDA ignores the optics of their decision and argue instead on the basis that they can legally get away with their actions.

Agreed, this is symptomatic of auDA's board and management which uses top down control and not bottom up multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance.

The Australian Government is a major proponent for the multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance.
http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/cyber-affairs/aices/chapters/part_5_internet_governance_and_cooperation.html

Until 2016 auDA had been highly regarded internationally as an exemplar of multi-stakeholder Internet governance at its best.

As the US Assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, Lawrence E. Strickling said, “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties – including businesses, technical experts, civil society, and governments – arriving at consensus through a bottom- up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.”
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Agreed, this is symptomatic of auDA's board and management which uses top down control and not bottom up multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance.

The Australian Government is a major proponent for the multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance.
http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/cyber-affairs/aices/chapters/part_5_internet_governance_and_cooperation.html

Until 2016 auDA had been highly regarded internationally as an exemplar of multi-stakeholder Internet governance at its best.

As the US Assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, Lawrence E. Strickling said, “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties – including businesses, technical experts, civil society, and governments – arriving at consensus through a bottom- up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.”

Very well said, this is why we need management change at auDA. Without it auDA will have major issues for years regardless of whether constitutional changes are passed or not. It just can't be run without proper community input.

This meeting, the way it is has been organised, is a good example of auDA's failings. Most people would see straight away that 6 days notice is unreasonable yet auDA trots out a response based on legal arguments.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Agreed, this is symptomatic of auDA's board and management which uses top down control and not bottom up multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.

The Australian Government is a major proponent for the multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance.
http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/cyber-affairs/aices/chapters/part_5_internet_governance_and_cooperation.html

Until 2016 auDA had been highly regarded internationally as an exemplar of multi-stakeholder Internet governance at its best.

As the US Assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, Lawrence E. Strickling said, “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties – including businesses, technical experts, civil society, and governments – arriving at consensus through a bottom- up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.”

The CMWG is multi stakeholder. It has a very good mix of people from different areas of the country and user groups and they all have the best intentions, but it has been receiving in my opinion definite limitations and specific direction which is coming from auDA Management.

auDA Management called the date and found the forum location not the CMWG.

I requested the forum be postponed until more preparation on the proposed new membership models was done, ready and available for people in advance of the meeting and more notice for members to arrange to come taking into account interstate people etc ( cheaper advance airfares, hotels etc).

Yesterdays meeting was cancelled by auDA, They did put a notice on the auDA private forum but most CMWG never knew about that, the CMWG after being concerned about lack of that meeting cancellation proper notice all jumped on our own teleconference with the majority of CMWG able to join for a few hours yesterday.

CMWG issues highlighted of concern raised;
1. Short notice of meeting notice.
2. Lack of materials of the proposed new auDA membership models being ready for the CMWG and members.
3. CMWG want it live streamed at the forum so people who cannot make it can join in.
4. We want the information of the proposed models made available on the auDA website in advance of the meeting for members to be able to review.
5. CMWG wanted the ability for people to read the materials and send in question on notice so the answers also could be prepared to save time at the forum and not fob off anyone.
6. The issue of membership stacking has been raised ( auDA media release rejecting it as expected).

The answers back;
1. Have the forum at this date and gain feedback from members.
2. CMWG to try and gain more information on CIRA model. auDA had said they would assist directly with their contacts at CIRA but it has fallen back to the CMWG now.

I could be wrong but I think the CMWG ends shortly after this forum, I hope this is not the case or it will have not been successful in achieving what is required in my opinion.

I think there is an enormous amount of work required to more properly prepare suitable new auDA membership models and have increased engagement from Government, existing and new potential members.

I have made it very clear to the CMWG and auDA I will not be rubber stamping things without proper process, accountability and transparency. It was said to me " will you agree with it be listed as unanimous etc". I said no if I I did not agree with something I want it on the record as an abstain or vote against.

It was/ my intention for this to really work but it is not being done right, poor communications., lack of materials etc etc. It is very time consuming every week to devote time to this and lock out other business.
 
Last edited:

Community sponsors

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
10,977
Messages
91,757
Members
2,060
Latest member
harry0124

Latest posts

Industry and community links

Top