Outcomes of the Independent Review into the Governance of .au

[joshrowe]

The following has just been posted to the auDA web site:

Quick links:
Media Release (text below): http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15122011a/
Overview: http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15122011b/
Full Report: http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/wcl-report-final.pdf


Outcomes of the Independent Review into the Governance of .au

http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15122011a/


15/Dec/2011

An independent review of auDA by international governance experts has found the Australian domain administration to be one of the most transparent and effective in the global Internet community.

The review of the .au policy environment by Westlake Consulting Limited in association with Argo Pacific Pty Ltd began in April this year. The review evaluates auDA’s organisation in terms of transparency, efficiency and stakeholder engagement.

Westlake concluded that auDA is regarded by local and international stakeholders as a global leader in country code domain administration. Given the growing reliance of Australian businesses, government and end-users on the Internet, the reviewers made a number of recommendations for improvements to help ensure that .au maintains its strong international reputation.

“We are encouraged by the results of this independent review,” said auDA’s CEO, Chris Disspain. “We thank Westlake Consulting and Argo Pacific for their comments about auDA being a world leader in our field. We’re very proud of that record, but are also always looking to improve.”

In the course of the review, Westlake conducted interviews with auDA Directors and staff, dozens of stakeholder representatives, as well as executives of other country code domain administrators.

The review delved into three key areas: Accountability and Transparency, relationships with the Australian Government and other stakeholders, and Governance. Among the key recommendations are that auDA develops an Accountability and Transparency Framework; establish a website redevelopment working group to refine information delivery to all stakeholders; and develop two-way engagement protocols and incident escalation triggers with a range of Australian Government agencies.

The auDA Board has tasked staff with developing an implementation plan and will consider all of the review’s recommendations, in conjunction with implementation details, at its meeting in February 2012.

The full version of the report and additional information are available here.

 

[brettf]

Review of auDA (Westlake Review)

http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15122011b/

Sadly very predictable.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Yes this is a very important report for the industry and I encourage everyone to read it and provide feedback.

It is great to see that there has been broad consultation including with our industry.

The true test of the success of the report will be whether any real and material reforms are undertaken.

If anyone would like to discuss the report with me and provide their comments feel free, as I am intending to write to auDA and or the Board with my views (and those of others in the community) on the recommendations made.

 

[soj]

Thanks for hijacking my thread Josh. But it does make sense to have a separate one.

I think it is important to summarise the overall conclusions of the report:

1. auDA’s operational model is regarded as working well, especially when benchmarked against international comparators: since auDA began managing the .au domain, the Internet in Australia has never failed;
   
   
2. Although auDA is generally well respected, relationships with some of its key stakeholder groups could be enhanced;
   
   
3. No fundamental changes to the governance of the .au domain or auDA's structure is necessary, but several changes were recommended that the reviewers consider will address identified issues, mainly in the areas of:

* auDA's Accountability & Transparency;
* auDA's Relationship with the Commonwealth Government; and
* The Governance of auDA.

Number 2 is really important to a lot of us here imho. Let's hope we see some real efforts at "relationship building".

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Ned as you have moved to this thread here is my post on the last thread:

Yes this is a very important report for the industry and I encourage everyone to read it and provide feedback.

It is great to see that there has been broad consultation including with our industry.

The true test of the success of the report will be whether any real and material reforms are undertaken.

If anyone would like to discuss the report with me and provide their comments feel free, as I am intending to write to auDA and or the Board with my views (and those of others in the community) on the recommendations made.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

unfortunately there are many other reforms which were missed

One of the biggest problems with the report is its failure to properly reform the electoral process to allow for free and fair elections.

I would have recommended that the Australian Electoral Commission run all auDA elections and each candidate be allowed a scrutineer during the count. There is no reasonable basis for that reform to be opposed!

 

[soj]

Ned as you have moved to this thread here is my post on the last thread:

That's fine Erhan - I was just about to move your other thread, but you have saved me the effort.

 

[Simon Johnson]

I've spent a few hours this afternoon reading through the document.

• There are a LOT of recommendations, some of which I would not endorse. eg: setting a continuous-service term limit for board members of nine years (it should be a lot shorter).
• I'd question whether auDA currently has the capability and resources to properly implement the majority of recommendations.
• I will publish an analysis on my blog in due course.

I'd like to thank both Westlake Consulting and Argo Pacific for putting together the review. It certainly wouldn't have been an easy job!

Simon

 

[soj]

1. auDA’s operational model is regarded as working well, especially when benchmarked against international comparators: since auDA began managing the .au domain, the Internet in Australia has never failed;
   
   
2. Although auDA is generally well respected, relationships with some of its key stakeholder groups could be enhanced;
   
   
3. No fundamental changes to the governance of the .au domain or auDA's structure is necessary, but several changes were recommended that the reviewers consider will address identified issues, mainly in the areas of:

* auDA's Accountability & Transparency;
* auDA's Relationship with the Commonwealth Government; and
* The Governance of auDA.


Number 2 is really important to a lot of us here imho. Let's hope we see some real efforts at "relationship building".

There was one other bullet point which I missed:


4. One of the key themes to emerge during our research was that many of the issues raised may be more matters of perception than reality, but that the
perceptions of stakeholders influence their actions and their relationship with auDA, so they must not be discounted solely for that reason.


And I do like Recommendation 4 on Page 9 of the report:

We recommend that:

auDA establish a ‘demand class champion’ to liaise with appropriate demand
class organisations and assist them in identifying issues/policies relevant to them.

Where do I apply for the job?

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

There was one other bullet point which I missed:


4. One of the key themes to emerge during our research was that many of the issues raised may be more matters of perception than reality, but that the
perceptions of stakeholders influence their actions and their relationship with auDA, so they must not be discounted solely for that reason.


And I do like Recommendation 4 on Page 9 of the report:



Where do I apply for the job?

Ned while I am still reviewing the report in detail, and it will take some time, this recommendation is not necessarily a good thing, while I support more member involvement in auDA, the creation of a 'champion' could or may be perceived to be, a person who exerts undue influence on members and the way they vote at elections.

I can guarantee you that no one from this forum would ever be appointed as the 'champion' or to any other position of influence or power in auDA. At least not while the current board is in place

 

[soj]

I can guarantee you that no one from this forum would ever be appointed as the 'champion' or to any other position of influence or power in auDA. At least not while the current board is in place

We don't have a smilie for "tongue in cheek", otherwise I would have used it previously.

 

[soj]

auDA have published their response to the Westlake Report (Independent Review of the Governance of .au)

http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/wcl-board-response.pdf

It's easy to read - and you can see what they have agreed to and what they haven't.

One recommendation not agreed to was this one:

4. auDA establish a ‘demand class champion’ to liaise
with appropriate demand class organisations and assist
them in identifying issues/policies relevant to them.

This was auDA's response:

The Board does not consider it necessary to appoint a
‘demand class champion’ at this time. It does believe
that current processes should be reinforced before
considering the addition of a full time role , ie. auDA
staff clarifying policies and handling queries, and
demand class directors representing constituency
concerns at Board level. It also wishes to explore other
opportunities for better interaction between the
Demand class directors and the demand
constituency. It further notes that auDA will continue
to pursue opportunities for improved
communication/collaboration with demand class
entities such ACCAN and ISOC-AU. The website
redevelopment will also help to address this issue (refer
to 3 above).

What does everyone think generally speaking?

 

[DavidL]

It further notes that auDA will continue
to pursue opportunities for improved
communication/collaboration with demand class
entities such ACCAN and ISOC-AU.

phew...