Resolution 3 - Scrapping AUDA’s in house registry plans

[snoopy]

Interested in people's viewpoints on this,

That auDA is not a wholesale registry as defined by its OBJECTS and Principal Purposes under (3) of the auDA Constitution. If auDA wishes to change its purposes, objects or scope, then it must first put a special resolution to its Members by virtue of (16.3.d) of the Constitution.

I think it is a grey area as to whether running a registry could be part of AUDA's functions (i.e. not clearly unconstitutional).

One thing that concerns me about this proposal is what is the outcome if this gets the "yes" vote, and then the special resolution get's voted down as well? If I had to choose between two bad outcomes, the existing registry operator continuing, or AUDA operating it I’d choose the 2nd bad outcome.

What is a good outcome? Verisign operating it? Someone else?

 

[Scott.L]

Interested in people's viewpoints on this, I think it is a grey area as to whether running a registry could be part of AUDA's functions (i.e. not clearly unconstitutional).

Hi Snoopy, I see you that you might be sitting on the fence, so let me clarify the purpose of resolution 3.

auDA implemented a competition model in 2001 and wrote its constitution accordingly. To this very day the character of auDA has undergone very little change to its OBJECTS as Regulator, Promoter and Policy maker.

Should the need arise to change the character of auDA Principal Purposes within its constitution then a special resolution (16.3.d) is required to incorporate this new direction as a "wholesale registry" into its constitution.

auDA Competition Model Advisory Panel
Final Report
Competition Model for the .au Domain Space
June 2001

2.2.2 The Panel is of the strong view that there is a need for auDA to maintain clear separation of policy and operations. Where it has delegated authority to another body, as in the case of closed 2LDs, auDA should encourage that body to also maintain separation of policy and operations.

For this reason, the Panel considers that it would be undesirable for auDA to also operate as a registry or registrar, as this would compromise, or be seen to compromise, auDA’s ability to act as an independent regulator of the industry.

reference:
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/cmap-model-final.pdf

Read more @ http://www.grumpy.com.au/background/

Cheers

 

[DomainNames]

Interested in people's viewpoints on this,

I think it is a grey area as to whether running a registry could be part of AUDA's functions (i.e. not clearly unconstitutional).

One thing that concerns me about this proposal is what is the outcome if this gets the "yes" vote, and then the special resolution get's voted down as well? If I had to choose between two bad outcomes, the existing registry operator continuing, or AUDA operating it I’d choose the 2nd bad outcome.

What is a good outcome? Verisign operating it? Someone else?

Good questions.

These all appear to be examples of the domain name administration body also running the wholesale domain name registry.

• HK Hong Kong
• SG Singapore Government https://www.sgnic.sg/
  
• MY Malaysia Government https://www.mynic.my/en/
  
• CA Canada CIRA Took over wholesale registry in 2000 https://cira.ca/cira-history
  
• TH Thailand
  
• NZ New Zealand ( all merged to 1 org soon)
• There are many more

One thing seems certain Ausregistry / Neustar / Golden Gate foreign company will not be running the Australian domain name wholesale registry. That decision has been made seemingly at Commonwealth Government level and auDA has acted.

Of course Ausregistry/ Neustar / Golden Gate would be expected to do all they can to keep the Australian wholesale registry cash cow.... so I guess they will be trying to find anything they can to help their cause... Certainly they could have some supply member and demand member votes to support their position. .. This highlights the breakdown of the memberships and who really has the power etc.

auDA has apparently had legal advice they can do the wholesale registry role so this really will be legal opinions verses legal opinions on the corporations act ..constitution law ...etc.

All I know is the Australian wholesale registry management needs to be secure and at the lowest possible price for Australian consumers both Supply Registars / Resellers and domain name registrants. The last few renewed wholesale registry contracts where supposed to see more wholesale price drops by Ausregistry but again this has not happened even though it appears they even write they would do this back in 2008/ 2009 at that renewal time?.... and it appears their massive profits from Australian domain names was a reason why they have been sold numerous times.

At the moment both auDA and Aisregistry/ Neustar / Golden gate make substantial profits from the Australian wholesale domain name price. It is a CASH COW That wholesale price needs to drop. The registrars/ resellers can make some more money or if they choose they can pass on this lower price to consumers / domain name registrants. At least VentraIP said they will pass on the lower wholesale price if it happens... but when will it happen? What / who is the hold up at auDA, Ausregistry on on the auDA Board?

 

[DomainNames]

sorry for typos..need to put my glasses on

 

[Lemon]

One thing that concerns me about this proposal is what is the outcome if this gets the "yes" vote, and then the special resolution get's voted down as well? If I had to choose between two bad outcomes, the existing registry operator continuing, or AUDA operating it I’d choose the 2nd bad outcome.

The resolution is not against auDA becoming a wholesale registry.
The resolution is that auDA needs to communicate the process to its members in an open and transparent way and then let them vote on it.
I think there is enough experience and knowledge in the auDA membership for them to make an informed decision.

If I had to choose between two bad outcomes,

Currently you have NO choice. Vote FOR the resolution and then you will have a choice.

 

[DomainNames]

The resolution is not against auDA becoming a wholesale registry.
The resolution is that auDA needs to communicate the process to its members in an open and transparent way and then let them vote on it.
I think there is enough experience and knowledge in the auDA membership for them to make an informed decision.

Currently you have NO choice. Vote FOR the resolution and then you will have a choice.

Of course auDA should have done this the right way but let's not think they don't know what they are doing with their method of doing things. Let me explain..Possibly auDA has concerns a members vote would have gone against them..Supply has a fair bit of control in both Demand memberships and Supply Memberships then what.. How could auDA take it over without the vote of Supply and Demand? This seems to be why they took the approach they did as they feared they could not get the wholesale registry for themselves any other way.

Another reason may not be being discussed... Security, Risk, National Critical Infrastructure.. auDA can't really come out and say there are issues......so instead they have seemingly taken the approach they have instead. IF is is classed as National Critical Infrastructure it can change how they do things. apparently.. thus you have heard this term used a lot since late last year by the new CEO.

https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations...ty-of-australias-critical-infrastructure.aspx

It is fairly obvious several Supply entities ( with both Supply and Demand member votes) would want Ausregistry / Neustar / Golden Gate to remain in control of the wholesale registry cash cow.

I still feel the Australian Wholesale domain name registry should be run by the Australian Commonwealth Government Department of Communications with available Ombudsman, oversight committees etc. The current auDA will really struggle to do it and they could blow a lot of money trying.
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet

 

[DomainNames]

Of course auDA should have done this the right way but let's not think they don't know what they are doing with their method of doing things. Let me explain..Possibly auDA has concerns a members vote would have gone against them..Supply has a fair bit of control in both Demand memberships and Supply Memberships then what.. How could auDA take it over without the vote of Supply and Demand? This seems to be why they took the approach they did as they feared they could not get the wholesale registry for themselves any other way.

Another reason may not be being discussed... Security, Risk, National Critical Infrastructure.. auDA can't really come out and say there are issues......so instead they have seemingly taken the approach they have instead. IF is is classed as National Critical Infrastructure it can change how they do things. apparently.. thus you have heard this term used a lot since late last year by the new CEO.

https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations...ty-of-australias-critical-infrastructure.aspx

It is fairly obvious several Supply entities ( with both Supply and Demand member votes) would want Ausregistry / Neustar / Golden Gate to remain in control of the wholesale registry cash cow.

I still feel the Australian Wholesale domain name registry should be run by the Australian Commonwealth Government Department of Communications with available Ombudsman, oversight committees etc. The current auDA will really struggle to do it and they could blow a lot of money trying.
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet

This goes into it more... There may be reasons why auDA has done what it has and how it has.
https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/InfrastructureResilience/Pages/default.aspx
" The Foreign Investment Review Board continues to assess and manage investment proposals on a case-by-case basis.

The centre will develop a critical assets register to build a clearer picture of critical infrastructure ownership in high risk sectors and support more proactive management of the risks they face."

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...sg=AFQjCNHikbUBo0lFWPCrHJm_fDpg6t2tAw&cad=rja

 

[DomainNames]

This gives a hint how auDA is positioning the wholesale registry management importance.. Obviously foreign ownership of Australian Critical Infrastructure wholesale registry is not going to meet the new mindset of Government and many.... all the more reason Dept of Comms should take it over perhaps.

"From auDA’s perspective, the .au DNS is a piece of critical national infrastructure, and as such, it is a key target for cyber security attacks. The two most significant types of possible attack are:​

• denial of service (DOS) or distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack on the .au primary and/or secondary nameservers, the aim being to cause severe degradation or failure of the .au DNS (.au domain names would cease to work)
  
• hacking of the registry database, the aim being to access domain name records for the purpose of hijacking or redirecting .au domain names.

 

[snoopy]

One thing seems certain Ausregistry / Neustar / Golden Gate foreign company will not be running the Australian domain name wholesale registry. That decision has been made seemingly at Commonwealth Government level and auDA has acted.

Lets just assume resolution 3 gets a "yes" vote at the upcoming meeting and then finally in November the AUDA resolution gets voted down and they can't proceed with the in house registry, where does that leave AUDA?

auDA has apparently had legal advice they can do the wholesale registry role so this really will be legal opinions verses legal opinions on the corporations act ..constitution law ...etc.

AUDA managed to pass the code of conduct also which is clearly against the constitution so I don't think we can assume AUDA has has proper legal advice.

 

[Lemon]

The Commonwealth's endorsement of auDA as the appropriate entity to hold the delegation of authority for administration of the au ccTLD is subject at all times to auDA operating within the provisions of its company constitution and to the fulfilment by auDA of the following conditions:

I think this is a pretty clear statement.

 

[DomainNames]

"The Commonwealth's endorsement of auDA as the appropriate entity to hold the delegation of authority for administration of the au ccTLD is subject at all times to auDA operating within the provisions of its company constitution and to the fulfilment by auDA of the following conditions..."

That's a great find Lemon can you share the link

 

[snoopy]

The resolution is not against auDA becoming a wholesale registry.
The resolution is that auDA needs to communicate the process to its members in an open and transparent way and then let them vote on it.
I think there is enough experience and knowledge in the auDA membership for them to make an informed decision.

Currently you have NO choice. Vote FOR the resolution and then you will have a choice.

That sounds good but what is the reality of the situation if these votes go ahead? It seems to me the contract expires June 30th 2018 (could be wrong on that date, couldn't find the exact answer)

If it gets to November/December 2017 and AUDA's vote fails what happens exactly? In my view they are likely to revert to their normal course of action in relation to the contract, just renew what they already have on not very good terms.

I don't think anyone should assume AUDA will have adequate plans in place if things fall in a heap late this year. AUDA is incompetent and even if they had a clear run I still don't completely trust them to get things set up in time.

Is AUDA's registry proposal better than the current situation? I think that could be the key question.

 

[Lemon]

If it gets to November/December 2017 and AUDA's vote fails what happens exactly? In my view they are likely to revert to their normal course of action in relation to the contract, just renew what they already have on not very good terms.

AUDA has 14 days (was 21) to call a general meeting which they have to give a minimum of 28 days notice to members (max 2 months) which means the EGM can occur end of July if they want.

 

[Lemon]

"The Commonwealth's endorsement of auDA as the appropriate entity to hold the delegation of authority for administration of the au ccTLD is subject at all times to auDA operating within the provisions of its company constitution and to the fulfilment by auDA of the following conditions..."

That's a great find Lemon can you share the link

The link is on the about AUDA page.
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/
https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-govt-endorse.pdf

 

[snoopy]

AUDA has 14 days (was 21) to call a general meeting which they have to give a minimum of 28 days notice to members (max 2 months) which means the EGM can occur end of July if they want.

But the resolution specifies a 2nd meeting, I suspect this is likely to be the AGM.

 

[neddy]

But the resolution specifies a 2nd meeting, I suspect this is likely to be the AGM.

Apologies Paul, I misread your statement (and so have edited my reply).

You are right - if resolutions 1, 2 and 3 get up (or even if just one of them does), auDA has to have a 2nd meeting. The timing of that is their call - though you'd think they would have some urgency in calling a meeting sooner rather than later!

Read my article on Domainer tomorrow - it has a very practical suggestion for auDA!

 

[snoopy]

Paul, our S249 meeting must be held on its own. Not at the same time as an AGM. There is plenty of case law for that.

This is the actual provision for the meeting - set in stone in the S249D of the Corporations Act.

This means the latest date for a meeting is around the 16th of August. auDA are entitled to make it earlier if they wish.

Ned, What I am saying is that the resolution is locking AUDA into holding 2 meetings before the issue can be resolved.

They'll have a meeting including the resolution,

That auDA is not a wholesale registry as defined by its OBJECTS and Principal Purposes under (3) of the auDA Constitution. If auDA wishes to change its purposes, objects or scope, then it must first put a special resolution to its Members by virtue of (16.3.d) of the Constitution.

If that gets a "yes" vote, I suspect they'll then have to hold another meeting for the special resolution to change the constitution.

 

[neddy]

Ned, What I am saying is that the resolution is locking AUDA into holding 2 meetings before the issue can be resolved.

Paul, our posts crossed. I misunderstood your initial post; realised that I had done so; then edited it! See above.

You are right.

 

[neddy]

On Domainer today - some practical suggestions for auDA with regards the Registry Transformation Project.

In part, I say:

Why Wait?

If members vote for Resolution 3 whenever the S249D meeting is held, you will then have to call an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) to put a special resolution to members. Or wait for the AGM to put this up. That’s ages away.

This will put auDA under all sorts of time pressures to wait this long. And what will happen if you don’t get a 75% approval from both classes of membership? To put it in plain lingo, you’ll probably be “stuffed” – and you’ll have to go cap in hand to AusRegistry and ask for an extension of the existing registry contract!

So our advice is get some resolution one way or the other within the next 30 days. Call an urgent EGM immediately, and put your case to the members. You’ll either get approval or you won’t – but at least you will know quickly. Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it?

 

[Scott.L]

Ned, What I am saying is that the resolution is locking AUDA into holding 2 meetings before the issue can be resolved.

They'll have a meeting including the resolution,

If that gets a "yes" vote, I suspect they'll then have to hold another meeting for the special resolution to change the constitution.

IMHO - The current auDA constitution doesn’t allow auDA to build an in-house registry or to entertain the idea of doing so.
Section 5. Of the auDA constitution states;

The income and property of auDA must be applied solely in promoting the objects of auDA as set out in this Constitution
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/#5

If auDA want to entertain the idea of building an in-house registry then they need the members to agree to it before they even begin. currently, auDA is acting Ultra vires to its own constitution.

auDA, Put your case to the members.