What's new

auDA slapped down in Court, given 30 days only

DomainNames

Top Contributor
https://www.itwire.com/strategy/82570-court-gives-auda-time-until-28-july-to-hold-sgm.html

"the court did not agree to the dates proposed by auDA and instead asked the organisation to hold the SGM by 28 July."​

"Justice Steven Middleton said that the costs auDA had mooted ($70,000) for holding the SGM were irrelevant"

"Those who have asked for the SGM are seeking the ouster of the chief executive Cameron Boardman and three directors – chair Chris Leptos, Suzanne Ewart and Sandra Hook."
 

snoopy

Top Contributor

DomainNames

Top Contributor

This is the exact reason members need to support the Resolutions.

It is time for auDA to stop the political spin, Time for auDA to stop the attacks on members who have spoekn up, Time for auDA to be accountable and transparent.

I think members, media and Government are sick of the auDA spin and amount of .au domain name Consumer money auDA is wasting on it.

I wonder what the outcome will be for these now?
"www.Grumpier.com.au
Resolution 1 – Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 – Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
Resolution 3 – Removal of Sandra Hook as a Director
Resolution 4 – Removal of Suzanne Ewart as a Director"
 

Attachments

  • Our-Platform-I-grumpy_-http___webcache.googleusercontent.com_search.pdf
    978.6 KB · Views: 0

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Reality:
http://www.domainpulse.com/2018/04/26/auda-court-delay-sgm-wastes-tens-of-thousands/
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/complaint-threatened-to-axe-stewart-media-website/
https://www.itwire.com/strategy/82570-court-gives-auda-time-until-28-july-to-hold-sgm.html

"the court did not agree to the dates proposed by auDA and instead asked the organisation to hold the SGM by 28 July."

"Justice Steven Middleton said that the costs auDA had mooted ($70,000) for holding the SGM were irrelevant"

"Those who have asked for the SGM are seeking the ouster of the chief executive Cameron Boardman and three directors – chair Chris Leptos, Suzanne Ewart and Sandra Hook."

https://joshrowe.com/
April 27, 2018
auDA loses in Federal Court

In a disgraceful waste of tens of thousands of dollars of .au domain name registrant’s money, auDA took me, one of the “Grumpier.com.au three” and a former auDA Non Executive Director, to the Federal Court yesterday, and in effect lost.

Here is my letter to the court.

"The Hon Justice Middleton
Federal Court of Australia
305 William Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

RE: auDA – special general meeting – extension of time application

BY EMAIL

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide a submission to auDA’s application. Whilst I am surprised to be named the sole respondent to auDA’s application, I appreciate this opportunity. I am one of three auDA Members who started the process of gathering auDA Members’ support to requisition a meeting of auDA’s Members, and I am one of 27 auDA members (comprising more than 8% of auDA’s total Membership) who ultimately petitioned auDA to call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the members.

In writing this letter I do not seek to represent all the petitioners; but I believe that they share some if not most of the views I express here.

I do not agree with auDA’s request to extend the time for the EGM, for the reasons I outline below.

As an individual in the Australian Internet community I do not have access to funds for legal representation for this hearing. I believe this to be the case for other petitioners, who have simply exercised the rights granted to them under the Corporations Act, as a last resort.

Unfortunately, and with respect, I am unable to attend the hearing in person. My understanding is that I am not required to attend.

Background

I have been involved in the Australian Internet community since the inception of auDA. I was an elected Non Executive Director of auDA from 2001 to 2015, and I have been a Member since 2000.

I am interested that auDA continues to be an effective organisation which holds the endorsement of the Australian Government to manage .au in the interests of the Australian community. I am involved in the calling of the EGM because I believe auDA occupies a vitally important role. I do not have any other motive, and I have no ambition to return to the auDA board or management.

Multi stakeholder

The Australian Government is a major proponent for the multi-stakeholer model of Internet governance. 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.”

Recent developments

As the Australian Government’s April 2018 Review of the .au Domain Administration (referred to in auDA’s submission) found, since 2016 there has been a deterioration of auDA’s transparency and accountability to its stakeholders leading to a weakening of auDA’s multi-stakeholder engagement.

The Australian Government’s Review (p18) noted that “the issue of Board stacking is of particular concern. This would suggest a manipulation of process to place directors on the Board to act in the interest of a particular membership faction, rather than in the interests of the organisation as a whole or the Australian Internet community.”

Need for EGM

I recognise that auDA is at an important juncture. It needs to put in place a new governance and management structure within a short period of time in order to satisfy the Australian Government. In my view, which I believe is shared by some Members, the current leadership and management does not enjoy the confidence of the auDA Membership to be able to successfully lead these critical reforms. In my view, the relationship and trust between the current auDA leadership and management, and auDA’s Members, is broken, borne by developments over the past two years.

I believe that it is critically important that auDA Members are given an opportunity to be heard, and to decide, whether it is content for the current leadership and management to lead auDA through these important reforms, or to put in place an alternate team that they believe would be better equipped to do so.

Extending the time for holding of the EGM would be to deny Members of a timely and effective voice that will impact on auDA’s ability to meet all the requirements of the Australian Government’s terms of endorsement, within the tight timeframe stipulated by the Australian Government.

In the current climate where I (which I believe is shared by other Members) am of the view that current leadership and management’s accountability to its Members is lacking, the calling of a Members meeting seems to be the only option available to Members where they can have a voice.

In auDA’s submission it has alluded to a number of reasons why an EGM should not be held within the time set out in the Corporations Act. In my humble opinion, those reasons ought to be put to the Members at the EGM to enable the Members to have an informed view and to decide whether or not to support the proposed resolutions.

Costs

auDA has claimed the costs of calling an EGM will be in the vicinity of $70,000. In my experience while I was a Non Executive Director of auDA we used the facilities of our law firm to hold Member meetings at negligible cost. I acknowledge that there may be some travel costs for the attendance of directors based outside of Victoria, but that ought not be a valid reason for delaying the EGM.

I am disappointed that auDA would prefer to use Member funds to incur costs associated with this application rather than hear the voices of Members at an EGM.

Yours faithfully.

Joshua Rowe"

Joshua Rowe
auDA Member 2000 – current
auDA Non Executive Director 2001 – 2015"


____________________________________________________________________
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
MEDIA
Millions of .au domain name Consumers ripped off / auDA membership and Board stacking
https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/...ncerned-about-auda-stacking.11863/#post-92329
There was a widespread view within the department that auDA had been “subject to capture” and “membership stacking” by vested interests.”

https://www.cio.com.au/article/640272/govt-demands-sweeping-reforms-auda/
"Interviews with auDA members past and present revealed issues around ‘board stacking’ – the manipulation of the process to appoint directors “to act in the interest of a particular membership faction”.
_____________________________
"The Board noted the unusually high number of membership applications received since the last Board meeting. It was agreed that issues regarding the potential for membership stacking and capture are a matter for the Risk Committee to review and report to the Board in due course."

"recommend possible amendments to the Constitution that would help to prevent membership stacking in future, with any amendments to be put to members at the AGM."

"The board noted that there have been other attempts in the past to stack the membership of auDA prior to a board election. It was suggested that auDA should amend the Constitution and/or the membership approval process to minimise the risk of membership stacking in future."
"When considering policy matters that may liberalise the .au namespace there are obvious conflicts of interest that can arise, particularly within the Supply class.

The situation is worsened by auDA’s relatively small membership base, which has approximately 250 Demand class members and only approximately 50 Supply class members. Once again, this greatly increases the chance of capture. For example, a Supply class stakeholder may operate 4 or 5 “Resellers” of .au names and could register each as a member – for only $110 per year each. Anecdotal evidence already shows that some degree of “branch stacking” has happened in this way, in the past.

There is also a lack of clarity about the boundaries of each class and has resulted in the transition of auDA Directors from representing one class to another (most recently at the 2017 AGM)."

https://www.communications.gov.au/s...paul_szyndler_auda_submission_pdf_publish.pdf


_________________________________________
STACKING auDA MEMBERSHIP AND BOARD.
"https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2007/070416/

"9. Constitutional Review

The board discussed a paper drafted by CN outlining possible changes to the auDA Constitution to address three issues:

1. potential supply side capture of demand class

2. supply related person standing as a demand class director

3. related entities holding multiple supply class memberships.

The board affirmed the need to ensure that the Constitution is effective and achieves auDA’s objectives. The board also noted the importance of achieving a fair and reasonable balance between supply and demand, obesrving that there will always be a tendency for demand class to be under-represented.

The board agreed changes to address issues 2 and 3 above, as proposed in paras 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 of the board paper. It was decided that the change proposed in para 4.3 of the board paper to address issue 1 may not be effective, and further consideration should be given to options for increasing demand class membership and making it more representative.

Motion (proposed JR, seconded Julie H): That the proposed new definition of ‘Supply Related Person’ and proposed amendments to clauses 9.4 and 18.3 be put to members at an EGM. Carried unanimously.

Action: The board to set up a sub-committee to consider demand class membership issues."
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Why did they get an extension at all?

These are all Paid roles. www.Grumpier.com.au

What will it cost in auDA funds ( .au domain name Consumer funds) to keep them for the longer period?

If they are voted out at the SGM do they receive any form of payouts? How much?

If they resign or are removed by the Board before the SGM do they receive any form of payouts? How much?

Government doc
"The communications department is additionally looking to find out who are auDA's stakeholders; whether auDA's stakeholder engagement processes are effective, and if not, how should it engage with stakeholders; and whether a transparency and accountability framework is effective"​
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
These are all Paid roles. www.Grumpier.com.au

What will it cost in auDA funds ( .au domain name Consumer funds) to keep them for the longer period?

If they are voted out at the SGM do they receive any form of payouts? How much?

If they resign or are removed by the Board before the SGM do they receive any form of payouts? How much?

Government doc
"The communications department is additionally looking to find out who are auDA's stakeholders; whether auDA's stakeholder engagement processes are effective, and if not, how should it engage with stakeholders; and whether a transparency and accountability framework is effective"​

IF the named parties in www.Grumpier.com.au are terminated / removed or resign before the SGM should members and stakeholders be allowed to know if any financial payments /settlements are made using auDA Funds and the amounts?
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Now they have admitted the AGM will be probably November....Maybe it was always going to be November and they perhaps misled the Court that they may do the AGM in September so do the SGM at the same time..
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Now they have admitted the AGM will be probably November....Maybe it was always going to be November and they perhaps misled the Court that they may do the AGM in September so do the SGM at the same time..

Here is the order that they wanted the judge to sign, obviously what they got was very different,

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 2.17.36 pm.png
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Compare it to what auDA actually got.

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 2.33.56 pm.png

Note also Order 1. auDA couldn't even get their own name right on their legal filings. The judge had to amend their filings after one of the SGM requesters told them their documentation wasn't even filed under the correct name.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Compare it to what auDA actually got.

View attachment 891

Note also Order 1. auDA couldn't even get their own name right on their legal filings. The judge had to amend their filings after one of the SGM requesters told them their documentation wasn't even filed under the correct name.

"Note also Order 1. auDA couldn't even get their own name right on their legal filings. The judge had to amend their filings after one of the SGM requesters told them their documentation wasn't even filed under the correct name."

---
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top