Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
After being humiliated by the majority of voters seeking to oust the Chair and other independent directors, the auDA board have fired back:
https://www.auda.org.au/news/letter-to-members-and-stakeholders-from-the-auda-board/
They appear upset that it has been pointed out that employees from 4 domain vendors together now have a controlling membership stake in the demand member class and will probably have the ability to determine the new membership model.
They keep quoting the government review in their communiques, here's one they might like to quote in future:
"In the first half of 2017, the board initiated a Code of Conduct for its members without input from its membership, imposing restrictions on behaviour as a condition of membership. It further determined it would remove board meeting minutes from the auDA website, stating that publishing them was ‘not best practice governance’.13
In response, members triggered a special general meeting in July 2017. The Chair resigned immediately prior to the meeting. Following the meeting, publishing of minutes was restored and the board revoked the Code of Conduct, resolving to work in partnership with members to develop a new Code.14
A number of stakeholders have flagged that the quality of the minutes remains a point of contention for auDA members.
Taken together, these events point to a lack of stability and transparency, an organisation undergoing significant change, and an interventionist membership base concerned about the direction of the organisation."
And "Typically, organisations with a monopoly position are subject to stringent regulatory requirements which is not the case with auDA.
The Review has reflected on how appropriate checks and balances can be established in the absence of market forces or regulation."
At the moment the interventionist membership base is the only check and balance mechanism in place standing up for Australia.
The people in control at auDA have access to a $12 million "marketing initiative" [nothing has been published on how this is to be spent - how's the governance on that?]
I also note the subtle difference since the minutes of 18 June where,
"The Chair noted that he could not see any basis for Mr Connell discriminating aginst the proposed members, given that auDA's Constitutional requirements had been satisfied and that the members had passed auDA's verification protocols in accordance with auDA policy."
And from today's letter, auDA's verification protocols and auDA policy is mysteriously missing [perhaps they're on the auDA website somewhere?]
"...955 members being admitted at the Board meeting on 18 June 2018. All applications for membership are subject to a proper application process and the Board was satisfied on 18 June 2018 that the applicants complied with the constitutional requirements for membership."
They also say "In May 2018 auDA wrote to a number of industry associations, peak bodies, telecommunications providers, internet services providers, registrars and other organisations and encouraged them to consider joining, and to encourage their members and employees to also consider joining auDA."
How come only employees of 4 domain vendors signed up?
Were they given incentives?
https://www.auda.org.au/news/letter-to-members-and-stakeholders-from-the-auda-board/
They appear upset that it has been pointed out that employees from 4 domain vendors together now have a controlling membership stake in the demand member class and will probably have the ability to determine the new membership model.
They keep quoting the government review in their communiques, here's one they might like to quote in future:
"In the first half of 2017, the board initiated a Code of Conduct for its members without input from its membership, imposing restrictions on behaviour as a condition of membership. It further determined it would remove board meeting minutes from the auDA website, stating that publishing them was ‘not best practice governance’.13
In response, members triggered a special general meeting in July 2017. The Chair resigned immediately prior to the meeting. Following the meeting, publishing of minutes was restored and the board revoked the Code of Conduct, resolving to work in partnership with members to develop a new Code.14
A number of stakeholders have flagged that the quality of the minutes remains a point of contention for auDA members.
Taken together, these events point to a lack of stability and transparency, an organisation undergoing significant change, and an interventionist membership base concerned about the direction of the organisation."
And "Typically, organisations with a monopoly position are subject to stringent regulatory requirements which is not the case with auDA.
The Review has reflected on how appropriate checks and balances can be established in the absence of market forces or regulation."
At the moment the interventionist membership base is the only check and balance mechanism in place standing up for Australia.
The people in control at auDA have access to a $12 million "marketing initiative" [nothing has been published on how this is to be spent - how's the governance on that?]
I also note the subtle difference since the minutes of 18 June where,
"The Chair noted that he could not see any basis for Mr Connell discriminating aginst the proposed members, given that auDA's Constitutional requirements had been satisfied and that the members had passed auDA's verification protocols in accordance with auDA policy."
And from today's letter, auDA's verification protocols and auDA policy is mysteriously missing [perhaps they're on the auDA website somewhere?]
"...955 members being admitted at the Board meeting on 18 June 2018. All applications for membership are subject to a proper application process and the Board was satisfied on 18 June 2018 that the applicants complied with the constitutional requirements for membership."
They also say "In May 2018 auDA wrote to a number of industry associations, peak bodies, telecommunications providers, internet services providers, registrars and other organisations and encouraged them to consider joining, and to encourage their members and employees to also consider joining auDA."
How come only employees of 4 domain vendors signed up?
Were they given incentives?
Attachments
-
upload_2018-7-27_21-6-17.png
