Some more auDA snippets for you.
Stuart Benjamin – Chair
In my article of May 1st, I pointed out that Stuart Benjamin was still listed as a Demand Class Member as at April 3rd this year.
I wrote to auDA’s Company Secretary (Di Parker) to clarify his membership; and to ask whether in fact he had legitimately resigned before being re-appointed as an Independent Director and Chair.
Di responded that everything had been done legitimately. She did confirm that “due to administrative oversight, Stuart Benjamin’s name was not removed from the register of members following his resignation, however that oversight has now been corrected“.
I am satisfied with that explanation, as I have always found Di Parker to be a person of integrity in my dealings with her. auDA is fortunate to have such a person on their team.
Scammers Beware
Lots of articles have been written on Domainer about scammers who use fake details to catch domain names on the expired auctions. These same people then put up fake ecommerce sites selling clothes, shoes and sunglasses etc.
I have been diligently following up several cases with the appropriate people at auDA, and hopefully, we might have some good news to report later this week.
Unfortunately though, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of these scam sites still out there.
Board Meeting 22nd May
This should be a big day. No doubt some interesting matters will be discussed. It’s only a rumour, but I’ve heard that auDA may possibly have the Boardroom swept for bugs prior to the meeting. 😉 LOL!
Hopefully, they will also discuss the legitimacy of their Code of Conduct – in particular Point 4. I believe auDA is contravening the Constitution.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to the Board about communication and transparency. And I know that another member did too. Looking forward to the responses.
Here’s my letter:
PDF: Letter to auDA 5 May 2017 redacted
What do you think? Any additional thoughts on auDA?
Ned O’Meara – 17th May 2017
Disclaimer
Point 4 of the code of conduct is highly objectionable, but it in my view the entire code has no validity. The board simply doesn’t have the power to remove a member. If they want that power the constitution needs to be changed.
auDA very rarely reply to anyone and when they do it is most often some form of censored response. This is the “new auDA best practice” for improved “accountability and transparency”.