auDA Revokes Code of Conduct

[DomainNames]

Looks like auDA has updated the website.

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/membership/
"Membership
Membership of auDA is open to all stakeholders of the Australian domain name system. This includes domain name holders (registrants), industry participants and the general public (see below for membership classes).

Membership entitles you to vote at General Meetings of auDA (see clause 16.1 of the auDA Constitution).

Applications for membership must be approved by the auDA Board (see clause 9.9 of the auDA Constitution). auDA may contact applicants to confirm details of their application and membership class eligibility.

Click here to begin the online application, or for more information, please contact membership@auda.org.au

Membership Benefits
auDA members are entitled to a number of benefits, which include:

• a voice in the future of .au
• invitations to special auDA networking events, conferences and meetings
• a monthly members' newsletter, which members may advertise their internet or domain name related event to the auDA membership
• vote for board members at the AGM
• subscription to the members' mailing list, keeping you updated with auDA and related stakeholder activities.

auDA Constitution.
Membership Fees
The auDA membership period runs 1 July to 30 June the following year. New members are required to pay a one-off membership entrance fee when applying for membership:

Supply Class - $110 (GST inc)
Demand Class - $22 (GST inc)


This fee covers membership administration and provides membership until the next renewal date, e.g. if you join as a new member part-way through the membership year, such as in February, you are liable to pay the membership entrance fee for your class. Your membership will then be due for renewal in June the same year with the annual membership fee then payable.

The annual membership fees are as follows:

Supply Class - $110 (GST inc)
Demand class - $22 (GST inc)"

 

[Bacon Farmer]

"Member class eligibility" should be read as supply class eligibility as everyone is eligible for demand class membership.

Supply class directors must be feeling vulnerable.

 

[Scott.L]

IMHO the Demand membership can’t grow out of proportion to the supply side numbers otherwise all members are suppressed by the inability to make up the numbers when required to vote on changes. So, it’s obvious why this membership framework is limited to a small number of members.

No classes makes sense, supply would need to be more engaged with members if they were to voice concerns that are otherwise ignored by auDA and it would give supply more strategic and efficient anonymity especially if member numbers were to exceeded 1000.

 

[Scott.L]

also, membership has no age limit or sovereign limits. (Sovereign limit is only a suggestion of an "inclusive" membership proposition nothing else)

Perhaps include,

9.7 Application for Membership
(e) applicants must be over the age of 18 to apply for membership.
(f) applicants must be an Australian Citizen or an Australian legal person.(to that effect)

The constitution is a type of contract, and if a Code of Conduct were introduced then signing up members under 18 just because no age limit applies would be irresponsible. (we may get "Baby Boss" involved - LOL - for those who've seen the movie)

 

[findtim]

story: i've found this whole 249 quite interesting because of the interpretations of the constitution but also because of a totally unassociated situation.
my best friend is going through a really bad divorce that involves young children, she's very switched on but not a lawyer, she's not well off so its a legal aid lawyer helping her, i won't bore you with to many details.

but we have been talking daily and what she is going through is that her lawyer and the ex's lawyer are both reading the same law and they are coming up with 2 different versions, both equally correct it seems, she is in a win/lose/win/lose mix , unfortunately i can see its all going to end in pain for the 3 parties involved, mum, dad, kids.

there's a great quote " seek first to understand, then you'll be understood"
its great @scottL that you care enough to dissect the constitution in your own time with your "lens" , this is the kind of feedback i'd like to work on, perhaps until we get the members portal up we could gather these points of view from members for further review/consideration.
but i'd like to make it more official then a dnt post as no doubt others would like to have an opinion.
i'm not saying everything would be approved, just lets also get it to auda as well. no doubt other members may disagree with you as well?
feel free to send me suggestions for consideration, please send me 1 per email so each can be dealt with individually, state the constitution number in the subject line for easy

and YES, this is what auda should be doing, and we are, all i'm saying is i don't want to cook dinner and find out you don't like basil

tim

tim

 

[Scott.L]

story: i've found this whole 249 quite interesting because of the interpretations of the constitution but also because of a totally unassociated situation.
my best friend is going through a really bad divorce that involves young children, she's very switched on but not a lawyer, she's not well off so its a legal aid lawyer helping her, i won't bore you with to many details.

but we have been talking daily and what she is going through is that her lawyer and the ex's lawyer are both reading the same law and they are coming up with 2 different versions, both equally correct it seems, she is in a win/lose/win/lose mix , unfortunately i can see its all going to end in pain for the 3 parties involved, mum, dad, kids.

there's a great quote " seek first to understand, then you'll be understood"
its great @scottL that you care enough to dissect the constitution in your own time with your "lens" , this is the kind of feedback i'd like to work on, perhaps until we get the members portal up we could gather these points of view from members for further review/consideration.
but i'd like to make it more official then a dnt post as no doubt others would like to have an opinion.
i'm not saying everything would be approved, just lets also get it to auda as well. no doubt other members may disagree with you as well?
feel free to send me suggestions for consideration, please send me 1 per email so each can be dealt with individually, state the constitution number in the subject line for easy

and YES, this is what auda should be doing, and we are, all i'm saying is i don't want to cook dinner and find out you don't like basil

tim

tim

Ok Tim, I'll keep my opinions to a more private disclosure.

.

 

[findtim]

i didn't mean to shut you down? i was going the positive ! post here definitely, i was just offering to get these ideas going forwrd
tim

 

[neddy]

story: i've found this whole 249 quite interesting because of the interpretations of the constitution but also because of a totally unassociated situation.

In the end, the S249D had nothing to do with auDA's Constitution. Why? Because auDA (in their wisdom) rejected the 3 resolutions that related to the Constitution. Resolution 4 came down plain and simply to law (S203D of the Corporations Act 2001).

 

[Scott.L]

I get it Tim.

 

[Lemon]

story: i've found this whole 249 quite interesting because of the interpretations of the constitution but also because of a totally unassociated situation.

Yes I can understand where some people may have different interpretations on words like:
Transparency, Accountability, Timely, Community, Members, Trust, By-Laws and Constitution

 

[Scott.L]

Yeah, It wasn’t until recently I learned what a stakeholder is, and its not this guy.