What's new

auDA SGM 27 July 2018

joshrowe

Top Contributor
Probably the most bizarre part was when Angelo Giuffrida (Ventraip) gave a staged and ridiculous speech defending the "membership initiative". Mr Leptos had asked him to stand up and give his account at which point it was completely obvious to everyone that was all pre-planned.

Clearly Angelo had not been well briefed for Mr Leptos to have to prompt him in such unsubtle manner.

The Angelo Dixer
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
The other strange bit was when Mr Leptos start going through the proxy tally for director removal.

He started with Ms Ewart, looked at the slide, looked a little surprised and said something along the lines of "she is polling quite well" even though the results clearly showed the majority of members voted to sack here.
 

angelogiuffrida

Regular Member
<some nonsensical dribble>.. Angelo Giuffrida (Ventraip) gave a staged and ridiculous speech defending the "membership initiative" <continued nonsensical dribble>

With all due respect, you are actually off your nut. I had no idea I would be called upon, and believe it or not nothing was 'pre-staged'. There's no conspiracy here. A great result and outcome from the SGM. It is time to move on, and I look forward to seeing the constitutional change at auDA as they work to adopt all recommendations put forward by the Government review. Goodnight my sweet prince, (DNTrade), it's been a fun journey we have had.
 

joshrowe

Top Contributor
Results are out now via email. They have lost the majority vote on all 3 directors!

Well done to Josh and the team.

Which is as the Corporations Act sets out - simple majority.

Odd how auDA flip flopped from the 2017 SGM to this one.
 

Bacon Farmer

Top Contributor
"A total of 11 proxies were excluded. Ten of the proxies were ineligible as they were submitted by members who did not satisfy the qualification period under the auDA constitution. One proxy form had insufficient identifying information on it."

It's not that I don't trust them....actually it is that I don't trust them. Can we get independent confirmation of this?
 

Jimboot

Top Contributor
"A total of 11 proxies were excluded. Ten of the proxies were ineligible as they were submitted by members who did not satisfy the qualification period under the auDA constitution. One proxy form had insufficient identifying information on it."

It's not that I don't trust them....actually it is that I don't trust them. Can we get independent confirmation of this?
Someone submitted a proxy but did not fill it out BF
my rejected proxies. I waited all day for them. They wouldn't give me their copies of them.
4 were not approved by the board until the end of May even though they paid early April.
2 were not on the register
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
upload_2018-7-27_22-26-17.png


As the government noted in its review auDA is no longer fit for purpose and must be reformed and it will be.

it begs belief that a statement like that is meant to make sense when it doesn't. They say in one breath the constitution is flawed and in the next breath they say - NO this bit is right.

Regardless, How can a Not Fit for Purpose Management be entrusted with reform in the first place. The Management flaunt their failure like its a fancy badge of honor, its sick.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor

This post was merged from a new thread into an existing thread, @DomainNames we would appreciate if you use the existing threads where appropriate.



---Original Message---

The Majority of auDA voting members at yesterday's auDA SGM voted FOR the removal of the auDA Directors www.Grumpier.com.au

In a disgraceful display how out of touch the Board where at the follow up meeting they all applauded each other and continued to attack the Majority of members who had voted for the removal.

We believe the rigging and stacking of votes directly by the Board and some auDA Management is a very serious issue which shows they in no way are meeting the reforms the Government set upon them.

We call on every interested stakeholder to consider what other entity can be formed to make submissions to the Government to perform the management of the namespace so that an EOI from the DoCA may be undertaken.

It is evident that the stacking of Supply staff into voting power now makes the credibility and future of auDA under the current management and Board untenable.

The Supply class people and Board who are ignoring the facts of the Government report need to be called out for their misrepresentations and outright lies.

auDA is supposed to be a " not for profit" but it been overtaken by profit seekers squarely intent on maximising their own personal benefits.

On a call yesterday with the Board and CMWG the PR Spin Doctor Ian Hanke who has been hired secretly seemed to play a major behind the scenes role. How much is he being paid? He knows Board members and auDA Staff very well... "Jobs for the boys" again . Why are members are stakeholders being lied to and the truth hidden what is really going on in meetings and with auDA Management and plans.

auDA Board and their PR people are working to remove the whistleblowers and majority of members who voted yesterday. YES this is fact.

auDA Members Be Warned auDA their Board and these PR spin doctors are now working on a new Code Of Conduct to mute and remove you. This is fact. They will try it before and at the AGM.

The majority who in fact won yesterday with will be here in the .au namespace well after the current Board members and current auDA Management are.

We ( the majority) invite Supply parties and the paid PR Spin doctors to keep posting your dribble and lies on all forums, keep secretly calling your media contacts to LEAK info you are getting from inside auDA it seems. It is making a great case file, we are saving every post you make and it further highlights ACCC issue they investigating.

The majority was ripped off by the rigged stacked auDA and the Board yesterday.

Chris Leptos behaviour was disgraceful in my opinion and in the opinions of many. Does he wonder why people get upset when they are muted and shamed by him in the way he does it?

The fact is now the majority of Demand class want to get rid of the CEO and the whole Board. They will not go as they are on the auDA Gravy train they have created by their massive domain name fee increase.

It seems obvious now some people at auDA and in supply are feeding information to the Afilias paid PR people to smear and attack whistleblowers and the voting majority..

The good news is with 1 membership class we will call for a majority vote and remove the current Board and auDA Management and get them replaced by management which IS FIT FOR PURPOSE.

Amazing to hear 150 foreign Supply staff who where signed up into demand class all had the exact same employer email address and P.O. Box used for them as new voting members. Blatant Vote and membership rigging all fully arranged and sanctioned by current auDA Board and CEO.

Let us be clear. The DoCA did not and does not sanction or in any way call for the mass stacking of new auDA Supply staff as Demand class members which has just occurred we have been told directly. auDA, the Board, Supply parties and their paid PR can spin it how they like but it is a deliberate blatant LIE and current Management and Board are using auDA Funds to pay for this lie.

When current auDA management are gone a FULL audit will be called for to check all communications, documents, emails, sms etc etc. Watch this space.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
As a signatory to the previous SGM held 2017, I found this email sent from Di Parker [auDA company secretary] confirming 203D will apply in the removal of Directors.

upload_2018-7-28_11-37-12.png


The original letter to the company secretary can be found Here.

Interesting to note within the the current Proxy sent to Members was the same clause:

upload_2018-7-28_11-36-58.png

The members called a meeting to remove three independent directors via the Corporations Act 249 subject to 203D, and not via any instrument under the companies constitution.
 
Last edited:

snoopy

Top Contributor
As a signatory to the previous SGM held 2017, I found this email sent from Di Parker [auDA company secretary] confirming 203D will apply in the removal of Directors.

Well that is a bombshell isn't it. When I asked about this at the SGM (several times), auDA eventually claimed the issue was not resolved last time. Clearly that was not the case.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
As a signatory to the previous SGM held 2017, I found this email sent from Di Parker [auDA company secretary] confirming 203D will apply in the removal of Directors.

View attachment 1157


The original letter to the company secretary can be found Here.

Interesting to note within the the current Proxy sent to Members was the same clause:

View attachment 1156

The members called a meeting to remove three independent directors via the Corporations Act 249 subject to 203D, and not via any instrument under the companies constitution.

So what is next? Do they just get away with it?

Did you write to the Ministers ( Including opposition) and ASIC to bring it to their attention?
Did you formally write to auDA? Cc all of the Ministers and DoCA
Post up their responses when they come.

It sounded like they brushed you and others off at the SGM with their usual tactics. ( They have Paid PR tactic people telling them what to do who where at the SGM. Spin Doctor Ian Hanke etc )
 
Last edited:

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

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

Industry and community links

Top