1. Welcome to DNTrade. If you want to find out about the latest domain name industry news or talk, share, learn, buy, sell, trade or develop domain names - then you've come to the right place. It's a diverse and active community, with domain investors, web developers and online marketers - and it's free! Click here to join now.
    Dismiss Notice

Have Your Say — Direct Registration

Discussion in 'Domain News' started by neddy, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Can we pull up the text of that statement? I think a lot of people are wondering why the CEO has suddenly gone from cautiously looking at the proposal (seemingly against it) to trying to quickly push it through without even releasing the research they have had done.
     
  2. Scott.L

    Scott.L Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    374
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    To be fair, the CEO stated "the Board is committed to direct registrations" - he is simply reflecting the ongoing stance of the board.
     
  3. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Yes, I get what you are saying, it seems a a change of stance to me from "We are deliberately taking our time to get this right because internationally the examples are not as strong as we think."
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  4. Scott.L

    Scott.L Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    374
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    The statement "the Board is committed to direct registrations" raises the question. Why is the board fixed on implementing direct registrations? If the board is open-minded, a statement like - "the board is committed to undertaking all necessary due diligence into direct registration including an implementation plan" then the board would appear unbiased (rational) and sensible.
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  5. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Agree it is concern that the CEO/some board members seems to be trying to push straight through to implementation without even releasing the research on the business case,

    The CEO's statement,

    Versus the Panels comments,

    I suspect there is vested interests at play trying to act as if the prior board vote is just a license to bring it in regardless of any due diligence.
     
    DomainNames and Scott.L like this.
  6. Scott.L

    Scott.L Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    374
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    I hope that's not true, it would be bad faith to hide or manipulate information by way of suppressing it to gain a financial advantage (directly or indirectly). Not only will those people be held accountable, serious charges could be brought against them.
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  7. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    AUDA are the masters of withholding information from members & trying to limit discussion. We had to go to an SGM to sort that out last time in terms of both the hiding the minutes and attempting to restrict criticism with the code of conduct.

    They must think we are silly to want us to talk implementing it while they won't even release the business case study.
     
    DomainNames likes this.
  8. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    455
    "He raised the issue of the Deloitte report being commissioned to see if there was a “business case” for direct registrations. This has not been released to members. John Swinson noted that it was open to the Panel to tell the auDA Board that, as a practical matter, direct registration could not be implemented."
     
    Bacon Farmer likes this.
  9. Scott.L

    Scott.L Membership: Trader

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    374
    auDA Member:
    Yes
    auDA appears to hide behind a shield of "commercial in confidence" as a premise for non-disclosure to members and the public. In fact,the company at all times is a commercialized entity acting like a privately owned company rather than a NFP.

    Why? I think auDA is socialized by directors who control privately owned companies and this influence has socialized the board to act accordingly. Both supply and demand side directors are from private company structures, most of the independent directors are from ASX entities, its actually rare to see an auDA director appointed from any well know NFP.
     
    snoopy likes this.
  10. DomainNames

    DomainNames Membership: Community

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    455
    I was schooled this week "Not for Profit does not mean they cannot make a profit...." Is it now $14 million in the auDA "Not For Profit" bank account...

    With the PPB investigation and report hidden from us who knows the real amounts and where some of the money is?

    I am surprised auDA was not set up as "Charity". It seems it may have been acting like one for some over the years.
     
  11. snoopy

    snoopy Membership: VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    AUDA does not exist to make money, it exists to serve the Australian people. The motivations within the organisation are completely messed up.

    This remind me of AUDA's answer to conflict of interest allegations. Where most members perceive one AUDA responds with an argument as to why *legally* it is not a conflict of interest.