auDA threatens SGM & Members with Court

[Cheyne]

How did you go with checking if anyone from auDA Registrar Ventraip / Synergy Wholesale has applied for auDA Demand Class Director roles?

I explained this to you already. I have no interest on being on the board, Angelo ran for supply.

Now... you have made serious allegations on a public forum that "everyone" knows that people have been personally targeted and threatened, and I am asking you to back up those claims with non-verbal evidence.

 

[DomainNames]

I explained this to you already. I have no interest on being on the board, Angelo ran for supply.

How did you go with checking if anyone from auDA Registrar Ventraip / Synergy Wholesale has applied for auDA Demand Class Director roles?

Do you and Angelo also have Demand Class Memberships?

How many of your staff have Supply and/ or Demand class members now?

Again for the record.. are you 100% sure Angelo has never gone for an auDA Demand Class Director role also?

 

[Cheyne]

How did you go with checking if anyone from auDA Registrar Ventraip / Synergy Wholesale has applied for auDA Demand Class Director roles?

Legally I am not allowed to ask my staff that since it's their personal business, but based on what I know there has been none.

Do you and Angelo also have Demand Class Memberships?

Thankfully auDA still publishes a list of members and you can answer that question for yourself.

Again for the record.. are you 100% sure Angelo has never gone for an auDA Demand Class Director role also?

Are you trying to imply something here? Because I am not Angelo nor am I his keeper, minder, parent or guardian. He can speak for himself.

Now that I've answered your questions, I'd like you to answer mine.

As everyone knows they have been personally targeted for calling the SGM and quite possibly have been threatened to pull the SGM or else.... I think this is disgraceful.. but what else can we all expect by now?

You've made a serious allegation on a public forum that those who called the SGM have been targeted and threatened.

1. Please provide tangible evidence (not hearsay) to corroborate this claim.
2. Please define who "they" are.
3. Please define who "everybody" is.

I look forward to your response.

 

[DomainNames]

If you don't know have a think why..

 

[Lemon]

 

[Lemon]

Someone get me out of here!

 

[joshrowe]

Sean,
If you want to play with the big boys you should realise you legal responsibilities.
It takes 5% of Members to call for an SGM. That is not 3 people.
Your signature on the S249 means that you are legally responsible for the calling of the SGM.
That means that you personally must respond to the email requesting change and you personally are accountable for any requests from auDA.
It also means that you personally are liable for any costs that may be incurred.
That goes for every single person that signed the original call for an SGM and that is why you, and the 22 other signees would have received a copy of the notice.
You asked for it so now you must take responsibility.
I suggest you should talk to your legal team.

Dear Ian Halson,

It is disappointing that you have sought to mislead people by talking about cost.
On what basis are you making this advice?
Why are you conflating the cost issue? Not even auDA has raised this.
Are you speaking for yourself?
Your statements are disingenuous

 

[snoopy]

Cheyne, why are you avoiding the question? You would know if Angelo was running.

 

[Cheyne]

Cheyne, why are you avoiding the question?

I'm not avoiding the question? I simply don't know the answer and I won't speak on behalf of others.

My question is the one being avoided, as can clearly be seen.

 

[Lemon]

Dear Joshua Rowe,
I am simply pointing out to the members who signed the document calling for the SGM to be aware of their responsibilities.
The auDA Board have indicated that they intend to apply for a court order pursuant to section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act extending the time for calling the requested SGM.
I am not a lawyer but my general understanding is that when parties go to court there are costs involved, lawyers fees, court costs etc, which someone has to pay. Usually the loser, maybe split, who knows. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that one.

I am not trying to discourage the calling of an SGM, and as a member I will vote on the resolutions as I see fit at the time. Personally I would rather see it come to a conclusion sooner than later.

Sean indicated that you have excellent legal advice and I am sure that you will pursue your convictions with vigour.
You obviously called the SGM for a reason. If you believe it is justified then you should continue with your course of action.

 

[DomainNames]

I'm not avoiding the question? I simply don't know the answer and I won't speak on behalf of others.
.

Keep dodging the question Cheyne....

"How did you go with checking if anyone from auDA Registrar Ventraip / Synergy Wholesale has applied for auDA Demand Class Director roles?"

What do you think if they did go for Demand Class auDA Board Director roles?

Would it be perceived as Supply trying to "stack" the Board or what are your thoughts?

Read the attached concerns of Government and ACCC from many years ago which still exist today at auDA of Supply dominance and stacking of both sides of memberships and the auDA Board.

3 vacant Demand Class Director roles and one for a very long time says a lot for what is really going on at auDA.

 

[Cheyne]

Sean, this thread is regarding the SGM, not about Directors.

I am asking you specific questions regarding an allegation you have made on public forum that requires further explanation and supporting evidence. By not answering my questions you are showing everybody who reads these forums that you cannot back up your claims with evidence.

If it makes you feel better, let's pretend I asked every one of my 38 staff to apply for a board position so it gives us a really good chance of getting at least one of them. The criteria said that you didn't have to be a demand member anyway so they were all eligible.

 

[Lemon]

What do you think if they did go for Demand Class auDA Board Director roles?

Sean.
Please stop banging on about employees of registrars applying for demand class positions.
They are not eligible to stand as a Demand Class director so why would they even apply.
I assume you are talking about Craig Marchant who stood for election last year. As far as I am aware he no longer worked for a registrar when he stood for election and as an individual have every right to stand for election.

 

[DomainNames]

employees of registrars applying for demand class positions.
They are not eligible to stand as a Demand Class director so why would they even apply.

Ian you are probably better off out of that conversation or you may again shoot yourself in the foot with incorrect assumptions and statements....

What would you say if a Supply employee / CEO / Director etc did apply for a auDA Demand Class Director role using their Demand class membership as qualification?

Would you think it is strange?

Are they allowed to... ?

This is the exact type of concern the current Government review has and made very clear is an issue.... as did earlier documents including auDA minutes..

It would be great to see a list of all of the Demand class applications over the years...and if any are related to supply entities ....maybe someone can leak that....

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."​

 

[Lemon]

Ian you are probably better off out of that conversation or you may again shoot yourself in the foot with incorrect assumptions and statements....

What would you say if a Supply employee / CEO / Director etc did apply for a auDA Demand Class Director role using their Demand class memberships?

Would you think it is strange?

Maybe you should stop beating about the bush and just come out with a name, instead of all this cloak and dagger shit.
Like I said they would not be eligible under the constitution.
Would I think it strange. No. Why? Because an ex director of a supply related company has been elected in the past.

 

[Lemon]

You've made a serious allegation on a public forum that those who called the SGM have been targeted and threatened.

1. Please provide tangible evidence (not hearsay) to corroborate this claim.
2. Please define who "they" are.
3. Please define who "everybody" is.

I look forward to your response.

Meanwhile perhaps you can answer Cheyne's question without trying to divert the conversation elsewhere.

 

[DomainNames]

"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

 

[DomainNames]

"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."

 

[Lemon]

"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

One persons opinion.
Also if they are paying $110 per year each then they are joining as Supply Class Members

Some submissions noted that ‘Domainers’—buyers and sellers of domain names—belonged in the Supply class but were classed as Demand.

Another opinion.
https://www.communications.gov.au/s...ons/internet_australia_submission_publish.pdf

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.

Ultimately, the Review finds the classes of auDA Directors are outdated and open to potential misuse. Directors selected for their industry background, expertise and experience are likely to provide greater board cohesion and support effective governance practices. Therefore, the Review considers that auDA’s Board should be comprised of a majority of Independent Directors. This will require a change to the auDA Constitution regarding director selection and representation (see Recommendation 7).

https://www.communications.gov.au/file/35916/download?token=5B0FX_oO

 

[Cheyne]

Meanwhile perhaps you can answer Cheyne's question without trying to divert the conversation elsewhere.

He's avoiding it because he has absolutely no evidence to back it up.