Letter to auDA Board

[neddy]

I did say I was going to do a letter to the auDA Board for consideration at their 12th June meeting.

Here it is.

I would be interested in your comments or feedback please.
.

 

[Blue Wren]

Nice work Ned.

Thank you for doing that.

 

[FirstPageResults]

Great initiative Ned, well done

 

[geodomains]

Good valid points Ned

Don

 

[Mark]

Well done for taking the time Ned. Good points.

 

[DavidL]

Good work thanks for making the effort.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

good on you for making the effort.

I doubt you will get a response. Two years after I wrote to the board about serious governance issues, I am still waiting for a response, even after I raised it at last years AGM.

 

[Ashman]

good on you for making the effort.

I doubt you will get a response. Two years after I wrote to the board about serious governance issues, I am still waiting for a response, even after I raised it at last years AGM.

I agree that I doubt a response will be forthcoming. Maybe you should get DNT members to sign an online petition supporting your proposals Ned.

You could form a DNT committee whereby you would make regular recommendations to auDA based on forum threads or public interest topics. If you keep knocking on their door more regularly they will have to listen sooner or later.

 

[findtim]

I agree that I doubt a response will be forthcoming. Maybe you should get DNT members to sign an online petition supporting your proposals Ned.

You could form a DNT committee whereby you would make regular recommendations to auDA based on forum threads or public interest topics. If you keep knocking on their door more regularly they will have to listen sooner or later.

devils advocate: thats a good idea petitions do work sometimes but the problem will be if the recommendations are all listed together there may be some that are not agreed upon and thus although 90% of whats listed is good you wouldn't get a signature.

the otherside is if you have 20 proposals they'll just end up filed away

tim

 

[neddy]

Thanks all for your positive feedback.

good on you for making the effort.

I doubt you will get a response. Two years after I wrote to the board about serious governance issues, I am still waiting for a response, even after I raised it at last years AGM.

Thanks Erhan.

I am confident of getting a response. I might be wrong, but I hope and believe auDA are now looking to engage with responsible domainers / domain owners. After all, we do represent
a large proportion of the Demand Class Members.

"Rome wasn't built in a day" - which simply means that change will come about slowly. But better to have slow change than no change. Honey versus vinegar. Imho.

I agree that I doubt a response will be forthcoming. Maybe you should get DNT members to sign an online petition supporting your proposals Ned.

I don't think online petitions work - and in this instance, I don't think auDA would give one even more than a passing glance.

These are the ways to get change imho:

• Become a member of auDA.
  
  
• Vote at election time for two candidates that will genuinely represent your interests.
  
  
• When there are auDA Panels or Working Groups, put your name forward to be part of one. (Change happens from within).
  
  
• When auDA call for public submissions on issues, don't sit back and do nothing. Put your point of view forward. The more of us that do that, the better the chance of being heard.

.

 

[Ashman]

Thanks all for your positive feedback.
These are the ways to get change imho:

• Become a member of auDA.
• Vote at election time for two candidates that will genuinely represent your interests.
• When there are auDA Panels or Working Groups, put your name forward to be part of one. (Change happens from within).
• When auDA call for public submissions on issues, don't sit back and do nothing. Put your point of view forward. The more of us that do that, the better the chance of being heard.

.

How about DNT form a lobby group via sponsorships? Sponsors contribute towards auDA membership for DNT members. Any auDA policy effecting DNT members are published on the forum and DNT members are encourage to vote on auDA policy but we do so as a group.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Thanks all for your positive feedback.



Thanks Erhan.

I am confident of getting a response. I might be wrong, but I hope and believe auDA are now looking to engage with responsible domainers / domain owners. After all, we do represent
a large proportion of the Demand Class Members.

"Rome wasn't built in a day" - which simply means that change will come about slowly. But better to have slow change than no change. Honey versus vinegar. Imho.



I don't think online petitions work - and in this instance, I don't think auDA would give one even more than a passing glance.

These are the ways to get change imho:

• Become a member of auDA.
  
  
• Vote at election time for two candidates that will genuinely represent your interests.
  
  
• When there are auDA Panels or Working Groups, put your name forward to be part of one. (Change happens from within).
  
  
• When auDA call for public submissions on issues, don't sit back and do nothing. Put your point of view forward. The more of us that do that, the better the chance of being heard.

.

I hope that you are right and get a response! On a positive note auDA has allowed our community some representation on panels, as I have been on a number of panels. Panels are not enough, board seats are what is important, a seat at the table in decision making is not negotiable - it is what our industry deserves.

As a community, our increased involvement is what has lead to some small changes, but as we all know that is not enough, for example the stupid monetisation policy is still in place, despite a number of us writing a minority panel report pointing out the stupidity in it, nothing has happened.

Don't forget the online space (including domain names) has evolved and will continue to evolve quickly, the pace of reform isn't keeping up.

Many people on this forum make their living from domain names. This is why this issue is so important.

I am always for positive contribution to the process, that is why I am on the current industry panel and have been on a number of other panels. I encourage members here to join auDA and become more active in elections, in panels and most of all in submissions.

We need members of this community to make submissions when there are calls for submissions, otherwise we get anti progress groups (i.e. people who live in the stone age) who use the opportunity to attack any attempt to bring about positive change.

The Industry Advisory Panel that both Ned and I am on is seeking public comment, read more here.

You will also see a survey monkey link, you can fill out the quick survey if you don't have time to write a formal response.

 

[neddy]

I am confident of getting a response. I might be wrong, but I hope and believe auDA are now looking to engage with responsible
domainers / domain owners. After all, we do represent a large proportion of the Demand Class Members.

Got a response - see attached.

In summary, out of the three points raised, got one small win.

The Board agrees that the auDA blog is an appropriate mechanism for engaging with the community on policy-related issues,
and has decided that it should be opened up for comments on a trial basis.

But what I was most disappointed about was their general response to point 2. This is part of what I said:

The domaining community represents a sizeable percentage of the Demand Class membership. And yet it is fair to say that we
never hear from our Directors except at election time. The majority of us don’t even know who they are; what they represent;
or how to contact them if we have concerns.

And this is part of what they said (the bolding is my own):

The Board notes your comments regarding interaction between directors and members.

This was discussed in detail. As you know, the Board must adhere to auDA’s constitution and the corporations law. According to both,
it is the duty of all directors to act in the best interests of the company at all times, rather than acting in the interests of a particular
class of members. Whilst some directors are elected by the supply and demand classes, and they may have valuable insights
into the interests of those classes, they do not act as advocates for those groups.

I find that to be a totally disappointing response. These directors petition us for our votes at election time (either on here or by email or both),
and they promise they will represent our concerns. Once the election is over, we never hear from them again.

If they are not "demand class advocates", then what are they?

-------------------------


As for point 3, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard would have been proud of that response. An answer without an answer.


Interested in your comments please?
.

 

[brettf]

I'd make the point in regards to membership.

auDA puts onerous policy in place in regards to identifying domain registrations. So as a registrar the onus is on us to manually check domain applications. For registrars we're talking about 40,000 new domain transactions per month. Similarly for COR's though obviously a much smaller number. So the industry is left to build technical solutions to what are relatively simple problems.

Yet auDA can't propose a solution to effectively a very small number of membership applications/renewals? It would seem they don't place the same expectation on themselves as is placed on the industry.

Ok, how about:

1) Manual application, online subsequent renewals?
2) Online application, manual approval by auDA staff on receipt of photo ID
3) Online application, supported by a nominating/seconding member
4) Online application, manual check by auDA staff of details, inc phone verification etc.

Really I could go on. But personally I'd just like to go on record as saying the solution to the problem of bogus members is to have a manual process cause it requires a signature ... which geez I've never heard of a signature being forged is a joke. Actually, no. It's pathetic.

 

[neddy]

I'd make the point in regards to membership.

auDA puts onerous policy in place in regards to identifying domain registrations. So as a registrar the onus is on us to manually check domain applications. For registrars we're talking about 40,000 new domain transactions per month. Similarly for COR's though obviously a much smaller number. So the industry is left to build technical solutions to what are relatively simple problems.

Yet auDA can't propose a solution to effectively a very small number of membership applications/renewals? It would seem they don't place the same expectation on themselves as is placed on the industry.

Ok, how about:

1) Manual application, online subsequent renewals?
2) Online application, manual approval by auDA staff on receipt of photo ID
3) Online application, supported by a nominating/seconding member
4) Online application, manual check by auDA staff of details, inc phone verification etc.

Really I could go on. But personally I'd just like to go on record as saying the solution to the problem of bogus members is to have a manual process cause it requires a signature ... which geez I've never heard of a signature being forged is a joke. Actually, no. It's pathetic.

Intelligently put Brett.
.

 

[Simon Johnson]

Interested in your comments please?
.

Ned,

I've just seen this thread and decided to chime in as auDA named me in the response you published.

#1 - auDA is correct in that I have previously raised concerns about the integrity of the membership base. In fact, I have previously written to auDA specifically outlining my concerns. To date I have not received a response.

#2 - I agree with your observations re: never hearing from Directors except at election time. That's a matter for auDA and how they engage the community.

One important observation that I'd make is that auDA has included people from the domain investment industry on Panels. For example, I was on the NPP last year. Having a seat at the table is a small step in the right direction.

When it comes down to it, I believe this is about education:

1. Educating auDA about the industry.

2. Educating the industry about the right way to engage auDA.

Given the above, I'd encourage all DNT members to sign up as auDA Demand Class members, so they can have a voice and put forward their views.

- Simon

 

[neddy]

I'd encourage all DNT members to sign up as auDA Demand Class members, so they can have a voice and put forward their views.

Totally agree - we've been banging on again about this for the past few months.

Unfortunately, given auDA's Constitution, it is now too late for any member joining from now to vote at this years election in October.

But that shouldn't stop anyone joining - you can still be heard. All it costs is $22 for a "Demand Class" membership.

Application form here: http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-membership-form.pdf
.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

The interesting thing about the letter is that it shows auDA did not undertake any investigations into the issues that Simon and I raised in our respective correspondence (they only took down online applications rather than do anything material), yet whenever anyone else is concerned they brief Maddocks to investigate issues and spend thousands of dollars.

Why wasn't the same investigations and effort put in, in response to our correspondence ?