What's new

WHY the 955 must go.

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Notice the distinction between the two classes;

upload_2018-8-10_11-35-49.png

Demand Class is for Non-Supply Related Persons, unfortunate for those employees of Registry, Registrars and Re-sellers, but that's they way it goes - 955 do not qualify for Demand Class membership.

9.5 – Any Legal Person who does not qualify for Supply Class membership - Means;

the following shall Qualify for Demand Class Membership.
  • Registrants
  • Non-Supply Related Persons
  • Internet users, in Australia
  • Australian Public
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Notice the distinction between the two classes;

View attachment 1179

Demand Class is for Non-Supply Related Persons, unfortunate for those employees of Registry, Registrars and Re-sellers, but that's they way it goes - 955 do not qualify for Demand Class membership.

9.5 – Any Legal Person who does not qualify for Supply Class membership - Means;

the following shall Qualify for Demand Class Membership.
  • Registrants
  • Non-Supply Related Persons
  • Internet users, in Australia
  • Australian Public

Does auDA Management and Board have this information?

Are they ignoring it for their own gain or the gain of some powerful Supply companies and people?

Perhaps this is another obvious reason why they are "Not Fit For Purpose".

Now we can all see why the "Independent" auDA Chair Chris Leptos who the majority voted to remove at the SGM www.Grumpier.com.au tried to brush off and mute the ex auDA CRC Chair Scott Long...when he was raising valid evidence and concerns.
 

Scott.L

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/

Board Minutes, 26 March 2018
upload_2018-8-10_15-14-37.png
...and, How did the Team go in contacting 955 employees, the majority of which are Offshore?
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
Board Minutes, 25 May 2018
View attachment 1181
Membership denied;

Melbourne IT – ARQ Group Own you; 9.4 only one such Legal Person within the group may apply to be a Supply Class Member,

They Know it, and ignore 9.5 in spite of it.

Agree, she is listed as a demand member. But Nikki clearly "qualifies" as a supply member as per 9.4.

Melbourne IT already have another member who also qualifies and one "qualifying" member may "apply".

Demand class isn't a "spillover" class for people who qualify in supply but are barred from applying because the organisation already is represented in supply. It is for people who do not actually qualify for supply membership. auDA are getting it wrong just like their legal advice was wrong about the code of conduct when they brought that in.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Agree, she is listed as a demand member. But Nikki clearly "qualifies" as a supply member as per 9.4.

Melbourne IT already have another member who also qualifies and one "qualifying" member may "apply".

Demand class isn't a "spillover" class for people who qualify in supply but are barred from applying because the organisation already is represented in supply. It is for people who do not actually qualify for supply membership. auDA are getting it wrong just like their legal advice was wrong about the code of conduct when they brought that in.

100% Paul, those who qualify under 9.4 'continuously qualify' for Supply Class Membership, until that status is terminated.

9.5 stops those who 'qualify' under 9.4 from becoming Demand Class Members. NONE are eligible because all Qualify under 9.4 respectively.

in this regard, 955 must be removed from Demand class, along with, everyone who 'qualifies' for supply class membership.

eg, 100,000,000 supply related persons within a group of related entities may apply for supply class membership, but only ONE will be approved for Supply Class Membership - those who are rejected do not qualify as demand class members because they continuously qualify for supply class membership, until their status as a supply related person is terminated or the company approved as a supply class member terminates its auDA membership.
 
Last edited:

snoopy

Top Contributor
100% Paul, those who qualify under 9.4 'continuously qualify' for Supply Class Membership, until that status is terminated.

9.5 stops those who 'qualify' under 9.4 from becoming Demand Class Members. NONE are eligible because all Qualify under 9.4 respectively.

in this regard, 955 must be removed from Demand class, along with, everyone who 'qualifies' for supply class membership.

Agree. I think it is clear auDA has major issues here with the membership base, there is all sorts of people who clearly should not be in the class they are in because they qualify for supply membership and thus cannot apply to be demand class members.

People either qualify in supply or demand, not "a bit of both" depending on whether a company already has an employee in supply.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Here's an analogy for those who may remain puzzled;

A bunch of mechanics decide to incorporate into a company called Mechanics PTY LTD and they decide to create subsidiaries for different aspects of their business, they also acquire a couple of companies on the cheap, and those companies including the subsidiaries each form a group of companies as ONE company.

Now they want to be members of the 'Mechanics Association Limited' (all powerful regulator for Mechanics) because they want to stack it to their advantage with multiple companies that they can control as members, but the company constitution states;

9.4 If a bunch of 'qualified Mechanics' in a company or within a group of related companies want to join, then only one Mechanic within the group may apply to be a Mechanic Class Member.

9.5 all those who do not qualify as mechanics may apply for Customer Class Membership.

So they Flip their strategy, and flood the Customer class Membership.

Members of Mechanics Association say;
Why are there so many mechanics in the Customer Class Membership?

Mechanics Association says to Members -
They are also Customers.

Members say -
Please Explain, Why do we have TWO classes of Membership?

Mechanics Association say;
(nothing)
 
Last edited:

Peter T

Member
Agree. I think it is clear auDA has major issues here with the membership base, there is all sorts of people who clearly should not be in the class they are in because they qualify for supply membership and thus cannot apply to be demand class members.

People either qualify in supply or demand, not "a bit of both" depending on whether a company already has an employee in supply.
Which is why the membership at CMWG forums chose a single membership model. Other models, which as functional constituencies end up being complex, and still have the risk that members may qualify for more than one class.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Which is why the membership at CMWG forums chose a single membership model. Other models, which as functional constituencies end up being complex, and still have the risk that members may qualify for more than one class.

Hi Peter

Firstly for the record may I say clearly to you and all of the CMWG, media, Government and stakeholders the reason why people want to remove and replace current auDA Managemnt and Board is not due to self interest or the direct registration issue. The reasons are very clearly written hear by the Government because current auDA Management and Board has refused to listen, has refused to stop making grave errors of management etc so we went to the Government!

The Government 29 points are 100% supported by us. The SGM, the Grumpies, The Whistleblowers, The Real domain name Industry people from both Supply and Demand and every stakeholder group. DoCA sayd 'Current auDA Management and Board are 'Not Fit For Purpose". They wanted auDA members to get rid of them and find other more suitable people.... or they will have to do it via an EOI or move it into ACMA.
There is no excuse for auDA and the CMWG to not be able to do the CIRA model and offer membership the same way they manage to do it very successfully.

The fact is many of us have been calling on this model as a solution for over 10 years. Over recent years current auDA Management and Board have rejected it because they have said "we cannot control it" ... meaning they cannot stack it themselves and it could lead to them losing their jobs or Board roles due to their poor "Not Fit For Purpose" mismanagement leading to members they could not control or use the votes of voting to remove them.

The Government has endorsed the CIRA model as have the majority of auDA member who voted last year with the voting of Ned O'Meara and Nicole Murdoch who also promoted it on election platform where they both gained the highest vote of members ever recorded. ( See attached)

https://cira.ca/membership
https://cira.ca/membership/member-activities
https://cira.ca/membership/become-a-member

Voting leads to Directors https://cira.ca/about-cira/board-and-governance

Board and Governance
The board of directors, comprised of fifteen members, manages the business and affairs of the .CA domain. Twelve of these directors are nominated and elected annually by CIRA members. The board considers pan-Canadian perspectives when managing .CA, and when representing Canada and the .CA registry internationally.

Meet the board
The CIRA board is made up of 12 elected directors and three non-voting board advisors. Find out more about the diversity of expertise on the CIRA board.

Join the board
The Internet belongs to all of us, and impacts every aspect of our lives. Find out how you can get involved. Become a board member, or participate in nominations and elections.

Compensation
As a member of the CIRA board of directors, you can influence the future of Internet in Canada. Elected CIRA board members are offered an annual retainer and a per-meeting fee.

Minutes and agendas
Read meeting agendas and minutes to find out how the board is working to shape the future of Canada’s Internet.​
 

Attachments

  • Our-Platform-I-grumpy_-http___webcache.googleusercontent.com_search(4)(1).pdf
    978.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
Hi Peter continued for you, the CMWG, auDA Management, Board, Paid auDA "Consultant" PR Spin Doctor Ian Hanke, Paid PR spin doctor Laurie Patton, Government and all;
1. auDA membership should be available Opt in FREE for .au domain name Registrants the same way that CIRA does it for their .ca domain name Registrants.

The fees which are going to these bodies from domain name paying registrants is far more than is required to cover a membership which 99% will probably not even take up. 2.7 million .au Registants at 0.5 % membership take up would be successful. and on par with CIRA's 15,000 Members.

Option for Non domain name Registrants to join auDA and pay the equivalent auDA fee's all existing .au Registrants are already paying $6.13 per year.
Limited to Australians / eligible .au registrants . Same as the CIRA model;
"Those wishing to register a .CA domain must comply with Canadian presence requirements.
These ensure that the .CA domain space can be used and developed as a key public resource for the social and economic development of all Canadians."

2. The CIRA model has been fought by current auDA Management and some Board members because they have said to some of us "we can't control it" .... meaning they cannot stack it as easily themselves. The way this is worded shows who and what the problem is. It is current auDA Management and Board who are the problem and who have stacked the current membership, current auDA Jobs, current auDA Consultant jobs, current Board roles. in some cases it appears current contractors used for services etc.

3. The CMWG needs to stop being misled by current auDA Management, some CMWG members, and Board about the problem being the Grumpies, the SGM Majority, the Whistleblowers and real domain name industry people. We do not need less knowledgeable domain name knowledgeable people on panels, committees, boards and working at auDA we need more real experienced people who know what they are doing and it affects the .au namespace, .au registrants and users of the namespace!

4. We do not need more other non associated bodies or people trying to get into auDA to get the auDA funds for their other associations.

5. auDA's role is management of the .au namespace.
  • auDA does not run the Internet. The internet will exist and run without auDA
  • auDA does not run the "digital economy' . The digital economy will exist and run without auDA
  • auDA does not run the security of the internet. The security of the interent is handled by many other bodies, users etc. auDA plays little to no role in this AS THE GOVERNMENT REPORT SAID.
  • auDA should not be the cash cow for other bodies, associations, Universities, charities, Consultants...
auDA's Cameron Boardman, management and Board are not supposed to be using auDA Funds trying to run Pacific country namespaces such as the Timor Leste /TL Namespace

auDA's Cameron Boardman, management and Board should not use auDA Funds to pay "Consultants" relating to any other country or any other namespace.

How much has been spent on the .TL Namespace or any other non .au namespace using auDA funds, time and resources?

https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/
  • Role of auDA
    auDA performs the following functions:
    1. develop and implement domain name policy
    2. license 2LD registry operators
    3. accredit and license registrars
    4. implement consumer safeguards
    5. facilitate .au Dispute Resolution Policy
    6. represent .au at ICANN and other international fora
    7. technical management of the .au zone file
    8. manage and maintain a secure and stable Domain Name System
 
Last edited:

DomainNames

Top Contributor
If auDA make all of the 955 automatic 'Associate members' with no rights to call an SGM / meeting of members, no $100 obligations etc and allow them still to vote for their planned Nomination Committee choice Board Director candidates I see this problem continuing just in another format.

Let's wait until Cameron Boardman and his crew( Ian Hanke, Chris Leptos, etc) present their last minute NEW planned New membership Model Monday 13th August to the CMWG at 2pm..... A last minute rushed meeting to push the CMWG into selling their model. My gut feeling is they had this planned all along..

Current https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/constitution/

Proposed;
  1. Existing members are all moved to 1 class as 'Associate members'.
  2. 'Associate Members' have no rights to call an SGM or meeting of members.
  3. 'Associate members' have no financial obligations if auDA is wound up.
  4. 'Associate members' can vote for Directors but only from the Board / Nomination selected candidates.
  5. CEO would not be on the Board.
 
Last edited:

findtim

Top Contributor
I think it is clear auDA has major issues here with the membership base, there is all sorts of people who clearly should not be in the class they are in
so lets fix it, i had to !!!! it was told in very black and white terms.
once you know you have a problem you fix it, you don't say " ohhh it will be fixed after an sgm,egm,agm" thats like saying " hey judge , i know i was doing 80 in a school a school zone but they are pulling the school down in 2 months " ......not gonna cut it.

tim
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Hi Scott,
At no point in 9.4 does it state a "Supply Related Person", therefore it does not apply.
So from this, the questions you need to ask are:
  1. Are any of them a Registry Operator? No.
  2. Are any of them an auDA Accredited Registrar? No.
  3. Are any of them a reseller appointed by an auDA Accredited Registrar? No (at least not as far as I know, but I doubt it).
  4. Are they part of an association? No.
Therefore, 9.5 now applies, which means they qualify for Demand Class.

Hi Cheyne,

Thanks, I have given more thought to your comment. You have a very interesting point RE: 1,2,3,4, ;) point 4 is very interesting, are they part of a union? but your remark about 9.5 is where your point is lost.

So why am I using the term Supply Related Person? The definition itself echoes’ meaning within the context of 9.4 & 9.5, in that, it imports itself therein as a Legal Fiction (an impostor) depicting itself as a Legal Person.

In this regard, a Supply Related person is the definition used to articulate the relationship with a Supply Related Entity. As you say, the term itself is only applicable to 18.3 but, for the purpose of understanding a Legal Person (in relation to a Supply Related Entity) I have used the term - Supply Related Person. In my opinion, it’s the correct use of the term (as per its definition) in relation to 9.4 & 9.5 unless you can think of another?

just another point; can a natural person be a registry operator - Robert Elz comes to mind.

.
 

Scott.L

Top Contributor
Which is why the membership at CMWG forums chose a single membership model. Other models, which as functional constituencies end up being complex, and still have the risk that members may qualify for more than one class.

Hi Peter, Classes do not matter, it’s about applicant criteria. A single membership without criteria against, for example, network building by Supply using internal agency for control, is unacceptable. CWMG must focus on, the purpose for single membership; namely, Board accountability, and a nominations committee enshrined with constitutional power to restrain mischief within a Nominations Committee and the Membership at large.

.
 

DomainNames

Top Contributor
auDA / CMWG need to read this and make sure the stacking is not only voided but that it does not occur again.

CIRA has rules that work specifically to stop what current auDA Management and Board has done.

https://cira.ca/legal-policy-compliance

  • "CIRA has a mandate to manage the .CA domain space on behalf of all Canadians. We pride ourselves on operating a world-class country code top-level domain Registry. Our robust legal framework and policies are intended to ensure the fair and transparent management of .CA."
Canadian Presence Requirements
https://cira.ca/node/29430/

Keeping .CA Canadian

The .CA domain is like the Canadian flag on your digital backpack – a unique identifier for Canadian websites. As Canada’s country code top-level domain, .CA is a key public resource for the social and economic development of all Canadians.

How exactly does CIRA ensure that .CA is kept Canadian? Here’s some information that will be helpful if you’re interested in registering a .CA domain to brand your website as proudly Canadian.

Canadian Presence Requirements (CPR)
When you register a .CA, you enter into a Registrant Agreement and you will be required to select a CPR category to show your connection to Canada. Here’s a few of the commonly-chosen categories:

Individuals
  • Canadian citizen
  • Permanent resident
  • Legal representative
  • Aboriginal peoples
.CA WHOIS privacy for individuals


For individuals, the contact information provided when you register is not displayed on the .CA WHOIS. This means you don’t need to worry about people using your WHOIS contact information to spam you (as is the case with some other TLDs) or purchase additional privacy protection services from Registrars.

Non-individuals
  • Corporation
  • Trademark registered in Canada
  • Official marks
  • Association
  • Trust
  • Partnership
  • Educational institution
  • Library, archive or museum
  • Hospital
  • Government
Please note this is not a complete list of CPR categories. To learn more about the eighteen possible categories, please refer to the Canadian Presence Requirements policy.

After you register, it’s possible that CIRA may request proof of compliance based on your chosen category through a process called Registrant Information Validation (RIV)."
https://cira.ca/legal-policy-compliance/registrant-information-validation

"Think you found a .CA domain that has registration information that is not Canadian? Let us know by contacting compliance@cira.ca."​
 

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