What's new

WHY the 955 must go.

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Hi Scott, ................

I thought you gave up on dntrade and said you would stop posting?

It looks like Scott Long and his interpretation of the relevant information was right after all....

When will the current invalid auDA Directors be removed...?

Isn't it strange auDA never had so much shi$ as this ever occur before except over the 2 years?

$Millions are being wasted making problems and trying to get out of them by current auDA Management and Board.

I can't wait to read the annual report and see just how redacted the information is.

How much did the auDA CEO Blair Cameron Boardman spend on the .TL Timor Leste namespace and "Consultants" out of auDA funds? This is a very serious issue yet to be fully investigated and the truth told to auDA members with the financial cost breakdown of auDA Fund wastage exposed.

Where does it say the .TL namespace comes under his role or authority to spend auDA funds on?
https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/is-auda-org-au-abusing-its-power.11920/
https://www.domainer.com.au/is-auda-abusing-its-power/
 
Last edited:

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Any domain investor who currently has signed a reseller agreement is automatically eligible to be a supply member and must not be a demand member until they have at least one employee as a supply member first. Once they have one supply they can then be a demand member BUT they cannot become a demand director.
- Anthony

Whats the definition of a 'Reseller' within the Constitution?
 

Drop.com.au

Top Contributor
Whats the definition of a 'Reseller' within the Constitution?
There is no definition within the constitution. There is however a longer clarification which states "reseller appointed by an auDA accredited Registrar". Since registrars and auDA publish lists of resellers it is probably a good stating point to NOT be on any of those lists if you want to be a demand member. Conversely if you do want to be a supply member then it is probably a good starting point to get onto those lists.
- Anthony
 

Drop.com.au

Top Contributor
For the record I see the 995 as not being blocked constitutionally from being demand class members but the are in a questionable area because their eligibility is contingent upon their being ineligible by virtue of some other person actively being a supply member.

So this really comes down to a conscious decision by the Directors who all voted for it except Tim. Kudos to Tim for voicing his disagreement and taking action upon his beliefs. In my opinion it ups the stakes for all the other Directors as they have now heard an objection and the decided to go ahead anyway. There is however a long precedent of allowing these constitutional equivalent of Schrödinger's cat's to be members. With precedent in mind I can sort of see why the Directors voted the way they did even though I don't agree with it. These cats being overseas and sharing the same email address should have been enough for a few more Directors to also flag concerns. It is not something I would go to war over, it is just a case of I would not vote for them again in the future.
- Anthony
 

findtim

Top Contributor
had not been onto forums talking about being a reseller
LOL, so true, but i am an open book !

actually i need to state, in all fairness, anthony and i started this conversation about my viability to be a demand class member way before i became a director, its in a thread here somewhere?
its also written that i checked with jo lim at the time and she didn't have an issue, she was actually not having an issue with the "way" i managed my clients not actually the reseller account i HAD so its fair to say there was some confusion.
happy for anthony to correct me but thats how i remember it, anyway soooooooooo i went on my merry way.

tim
 
Last edited:

findtim

Top Contributor
There is however a long precedent of allowing
well thats gone now, the precedence of acceptance ended with me. now we need to get back to how the constitution was meant to be read.
but the are in a questionable area
there's no question for me here, and scott has put it very clearly.
i'll put it in my words:
" once the supply class membership is taken, there can be no more memberships in any class from that entity/association or whatever name you wish to place beside it "
the spirit of the constitution and through its amendments was to stop supply side taking over demand, thats it.
otherwise why have classes ?
a single member model change at the agm has to still have equality as a base, its been discussed by the cmwg in open forums and they really need to consider this, having a single member model with 500 members under basically 1 proxy vote is not what i believe the government intended.
what we need is 500 new members with 500 individual minds and decisions, is anyone going to fight me on that? dubbo dentist, sydney florist, joans wedding planner, etc etcccc
without these individuals as members the stakeholders, "the real ones", will be helpless, how long until the price goes up through just 1 proxy vote?
the consequences are very clear to me and this is just from what is common knowledge you all have but many haven't seen the combinations, i seem to wake up every morning with a new potential disaster the 955 can inflict on the australian domain name owners.
the 955 must go, i believe now they are not eligible to be members at all.

this BS about how once the supply membership is taken it becomes open slather for all employees to become demand is ridiculous, the FIRST member does not negate the fact that the rest still qualify as supply class.

12 irish guys walk up to a bar, " sorry, only 1 irish allowed in"............... "ok i'll be the irish, hey guys, you are all now spanish ! " come on in !!!!

tim
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
what we need is 500 new members with 500 individual minds and decisions, is anyone going to fight me on that?

Yes, half the membership base will.

I was speaking to someone on the CMWG the other day (who I have never spoken to before) and I suggested that as soon as the constitution is changed many people will immediately be looking at how they can stack it. People will be all over it looking for legal arguments for multiple memberships.

I hope the CMWG is properly resourced and getting legal advice from an independant law firm on how to make membership and director election/nomination bullet proof, or at least as bullet proof as possible. The CMWG needs a proper budget, independence, and the courage to propose solutions that auDA itself may not be in favour of. Millions should be going into this.
 

Drop.com.au

Top Contributor
LOL, so true, but i am an open book !

actually i need to state, in all fairness, anthony and i started this conversation about my viability to be a demand class member way before i became a director, its in a thread here somewhere?
its also written that i checked with jo lim at the time and she didn't have an issue, she was actually not having an issue with the "way" i managed my clients not actually the reseller account i HAD so its fair to say there was some confusion.
happy for anthony to correct me but thats how i remember it, anyway soooooooooo i went on my merry way.

tim
Just for everyone to be clear here for everyone, I was the one who "dobbed" Tim in. I basically questioned how the Supply Related Persons rule was not being applied to resellers sitting as Demand Directors. I then cited Tim as an example and he got the book thrown at him.

well thats gone now, the precedence of acceptance ended with me. now we need to get back to how the constitution was meant to be read.
I happen to agree with you that once you have a supply member in place that should be it, however the constitution is not clear enough to make that 100% clear.

there's no question for me here, and scott has put it very clearly.
i'll put it in my words:
" once the supply class membership is taken, there can be no more memberships in any class from that entity/association or whatever name you wish to place beside it "
the spirit of the constitution and through its amendments was to stop supply side taking over demand, thats it.
otherwise why have classes ?
Technically the amendments where put in place to prevent the capture of the board by supply which is what they have done by not allowing the members to become directors. The amendments did not foresee a membership base being stacked in order to vote in constitutional changes which would effectively get rid of all the existing members. Who would have predicted that you could get a board to vote to allow the stacking to take place to remove the board members themselves. Who would have predicted that any companies would be willing to put down $20K to do this. This was hard to predict or see coming, amendments or no amendments this is impressive. All I can say is surely this is what the government wants because if this is not their intention then they are the only ones who can do anything.

a single member model change at the agm has to still have equality as a base, its been discussed by the cmwg in open forums and they really need to consider this, having a single member model with 500 members under basically 1 proxy vote is not what i believe the government intended.
what we need is 500 new members with 500 individual minds and decisions, is anyone going to fight me on that? dubbo dentist, sydney florist, joans wedding planner, etc etcccc
without these individuals as members the stakeholders, "the real ones", will be helpless, how long until the price goes up through just 1 proxy vote?
the consequences are very clear to me and this is just from what is common knowledge you all have but many haven't seen the combinations, i seem to wake up every morning with a new potential disaster the 955 can inflict on the australian domain name owners.
the 955 must go, i believe now they are not eligible to be members at all.
You are going to have to drive up to Canberra to make your case on this one then as they have precedent, they have already been accepted and they have paid lawyers to explain to you that the constitution is not written in english, it is written in legalese.
this BS about how once the supply membership is taken it becomes open slather for all employees to become demand is ridiculous, the FIRST member does not negate the fact that the rest still qualify as supply class.
I agree with you and for the record because DS belongs to Trellian now I am no longer eligible as a supply member in my own right. So in theory to remain as an auDA member I would have to become a demand member which I am consciously not doing because 1) I have a voice via my company (I can try to convince David to vote one way or another) and 2) I identify myself quite strongly as belonging to supply.

- Anthony
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Is it possible the stacked memberships in fact where not paid for? YES

Where they perhaps on paper paid for but rebated using auDA "Marketing Slush Funds" ( .au domain name Consumer funds) which no one really gets to see has occurred? YES

  • Rigged
  • Stacked
The problem is to some people they think this is all ok and normal.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_stacking

These people need to be removed from the management of the .au namespace completely and any other sucker fish organisations people feeding off it's auDA funds and gravy train.

Activities commonly considered to be branch stacking include:
  • Paying another person's party membership fee, with or without their knowledge.
  • Recruiting members on the condition that they are then obliged to vote in a particular way.
  • Recruiting members for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of a ballot within the party.
  • Recruiting members who do not live at the claimed address of enrolment.
  • Enrolling people on the electoral roll with false information about their identity or their address of enrolment — this may either take the form of consensual false enrolment, or of forgery.
  • Organising or paying concessional rate fees for a person who is ineligible for concessional rates.
  • "Cemetery voting", or using the names of dead people to vote in a party preselection.
  • Offering inducements to younger or less powerful party members to engage in such behaviour.
 
Last edited:

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Did anyone find the Membership Applicant Policy on auDA's website?

it is really important to know the Boards Guidelines in qualifying each Applicant according to each of the Membership Classes.

The Membership Applicant Policy should contain criteria for Applicant Assessment - One of the most important reasons to reject a supply related persons application for demand Class Membership might include ;
  • 955 proxies controlled by 1 person.
  • 955 employees receive a financial benefit, as employees they must act in the best interest of their employer (registry,registrar,re-seller)
  • 955 employees have a significant influence over the affairs of the company - may receive shares for reward (performance bonuses) or partake in employee share schemes.
(There's more)

Dreamscape Half Yearly report; 2017
  • Tony Sparks - Company Secretary of Dreamscape Networks received 200,000 performance bonus shares, and a total of 600,000 shares distributed in 3 tranches.
  • Over 3.8 million performance shares were issued to an executive, and other senior employees at Dreamscape.
upload_2018-8-9_23-31-46.png


Dreamscape controls Related Entities within Supply Class;

  • Web Address Registration Pty Ltd (Supply Member)
  • Domain Name Registrar (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supply Member)

9.4 only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member.
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
it is really important to know the Boards Guidelines in qualifying each Applicant according to each of the Membership Classes.

The Membership Applicant Policy should contain criteria for Applicant Assessment - One of the most important reasons to reject a supply related persons application for demand Class Membership might include ;
  • 955 proxies controlled by 1 person.
  • 955 employees receive a financial benefit, as employees they must act in the best interest of their employer (registry,registrar,re-seller)
  • 955 employees have a significant influence over the affairs of the company - may receive shares for reward (performance bonuses) or partake in employee share schemes.
(There's more)

Dreamscape Half Yearly report; 2017
  • Tony Sparks - Company Secretary of Dreamscape Networks received 200,000 performance bonus shares, and a total of 600,000 shares distributed in 3 tranches.
  • Over 3.8 million performance shares were issued to an executive, and other senior employees at Dreamscape.
View attachment 1172


Dreamscape controls Related Entities within Supply Class;

  • Web Address Registration Pty Ltd (Supply Member)
  • Domain Name Registrar (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supply Member)

File dump it all..... They had their chance.

EXPOSE THEM
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
WOW

imagine if it came out the Board was caught talking about doing things such as having to do the proposed competing additional Direct registrations to appease Crazy Domains....

Would anyone have concerns the auDA Board felt pressured, was compromised, influenced or was thinking and talking this way?


Now we have the very problem the ACCC identified back in 1999 and exactly where auDA is at now.

ALL due to the deliberate actions of the CEO and CHAIR to go and sign up these Supply groups this way..and give them power over not just the membership but ultimately over auDA.. the "Regulator" ..
 

Attachments

  • ACCC and Government auDA Concerns Supply members(1).pdf
    971.4 KB · Views: 0

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Do you think Senior Employees of Dreamscape have a financial interest in the affairs of auDA?


Performance rights On 2 November 2016;
  • 3,820,000 performance rights were issued to an executive and other senior employees in three tranches as follows:
Dreamscape management:
  • Vasiliy Shcherbatiuk - Admin Manager
  • Luke Doherty - Information Security Officer
  • Brendan Smith - Development Manager – Asia Pacific
  • Egor Kozyrev - Web Development Manager – Europe
  • Nihal Acharigae - Head of Strategic Partnerships
  • Lauren Lever - Chief Digital Officer
  • Tony Sparks - Company Secretary
upload_2018-8-10_0-57-13.png

Employees are Related if a group exists; Dreamscape is a group of related entities of which a person is part of 2 or more groups, employees are used in more than one business (i.e. call centre employees, Officeholders, Directors, Senior Employees, Executives) or has a controlling interest in 2 or more businesses.

upload_2018-8-10_0-58-18.png

Unacceptable use of Power by the Board of auDA - remove the 955
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
9.5 – Any Legal Person who does not qualify for Supply Class membership - Means;
  • Registrants
  • Non-Supply Related Persons
  • Internet users, in Australia
  • Australian Public
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 102C

In Australia

In Australia means in Australia (whether in this jurisdiction or not).

auDA Constitution:

"Australian Internet Community"
means those users and suppliers of services via the Internet who are based in Australia

3.2 Activities
b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;
g. ensuring its operations produce timely outputs which are relevant to the needs of the Australian Internet Community.

Government Review:
2.4 - auDA Governance structure:

auDA operates a membership model, comprised of two membership classes:

Supply class members:
  • for domain name industry participants (registry operators, registrars and re-sellers)
Demand class members:
  • for domain name holders "registrants", internet users, and the general public.
Government Advisory Committee;
GAC Principle 9.1.6
  • All .au registrations require the registrant to be resident in Australia.
GAC Principle 9.1.8
  • This principle is not applicable to auDA as all .au registrations require the registrant to be resident in Australia.

auDA, Remove 955
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
The membership approval policy is on auDA's website,

"Applications for membership must be approved by the auDA Board (see clause 9.9 of the auDA Constitution). auDA may contact applicants to confirm details of their application and membership class eligibility."

The keyword is "may".

They have changed it so they can flip flop depending on whether it is one of "their memberships" or someone else membership. If it is a friendly membership they'll put it through no questions asked, if it is anyone else they'll ring up with 20 questions.

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/membership/
 

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
10,979
Messages
91,775
Members
2,061
Latest member
domino111

Latest posts

Industry and community links

Top