Today, Associate Members have been invited to elect four member-elected directors, out of a total of six candidates.
The six candidates are:
Associate Members can lodge their vote by clicking the link in the email they should have received today.
Although it’s great to see some seasoned professional domain investors with loads of experience in this industry like Christopher Norris putting his hand up to be elected, it would be interesting to note how many other people from the domain name industry put their hand up to be considered as a candidate, only to be “vetted” out by auDA from being considered for election.
It’s also interesting to note there are only six candidate options. Is this really a choice?
I put my hand up and didn’t even get an interview.
Apparently the vetting was done by a sub-committee.
I know your name “Nobbie” is not your real name, but a lot of us know who you are and how much value you have added to this industry over the past decade. It’s crazy they didn’t even allow you to run as a candidate so the members could decide for themselves?
Just voted ,,,, yes its nice to see Christopher Norris is in the list
So I suspect google will be our friend here.
So the current Chair has been involved with Goulburn Murray Water for a few years and Tania Fryer is involved with City West Water. I’m sure water utility governance isn’t a huge space – could they possibly know each other? Sigh.
Christopher Norris is an excellent candidate. His knowledge and experience would be invaluable to the auDA Board.
The whole point of having 4 elected director positions is that these positions would be filled by people who have reasonable experience in the industry. What the committee have done is basically appoint 8 independent directors and then thrown in 1 supply and 1 demand representative to give the impression that members have a choice. There should have been a minimum of 8 candidates for the elected directors and the candidates should have been selected from within the industry, or at least have some knowledge of the industry. Granted Sandra Davey does have industry experience (her CV says auda 2001-2009 but I can’t find her name on the minutes for that period and the auda we says 03/05/1999 – 07/10/1999) but the other candidates are basically professional board members.
Considering the nomination committee has spent nearly $500,000 Dollars (Yes that is 1/2 Million) to go through the process you would expect that the appointed independent directors are going to be outstanding with great industry experience. Obviously they have already been chosen so why have they not been announced. Perhaps it is because we all may question why?
With the directors expenses going up to $580,000, next years annual report will already show an expense of 1 Million Dollars just to appoint a new board. I don’t think auda has spent that for something as important as direct registration.
Totally agree with you Nobbie.
I’m sure all the candidates “vetted” really well, but as you say, the new auDA needs a good balance of industry experience to complement strong independent directors.
Christopher and Angelo provide that, but not to have more candidates from which to choose from is very disappointing. I’m aware of at least 6 people from “supply” and “demand” that put their hand up, but didn’t get past first base.
If you look at auDA’s members benefits page, every Associate Member is supposed to have the opportunity to stand as an Elected Director.
Better take some screen shots before auDA deletes this off
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/membership/
For more information, visit: joinauda.org.au
Why become an Associate Member?
Enjoy all these exclusive benefits and more for free as an auDA Associate Member:
the right to vote for auDA Elected Directors and opportunity to stand as an Elected Director
User #294894 2210 posts
Angelo Giuffrida
VentraIP Australia
Service Provider
reference: whrl.pl/Re3cwO
posted 2017-Dec-7, 4:36 pm AEST
(Angelo thinks people who sell domain names are a problem)
Compared to .com, there are plenty of “good” names still available in .au, but the problem is that many of them have been squatted by people trying to profit.
( Angelo’s thoughts on Implementation of au.)
If we want to guarantee that names remain available then we should look to ban monetisation of direct .au for 3-5 years after it officially launches.
(Angelo’s idea being, to stop those with valuable domains from receiving their exact match domain)
Vote 1 – Angelo.
I guess we should all thank the hundreds of auDA members that voted for this constitutional change last year.
Also, We should give three cheers to the auDA board for approving over 1,000 members (in one hour) – who then having been auDA members for only 10 days were able to reconstitute the company and it’s future with a single offshore proxy vote. Hip hip…
For the newbies that was SARCASM.. You might need to make it clear or auDA and their stacking Supply boffins will applaud themselves.
Where is Laurie Patton .. “The Unlucky General” these days? Did he stop getting paid by auDA or Afilias and move on to the next “trolling” gig?