Well, the Special Members Meeting has come and gone, and already we’re starting to see some results. The cartoon above has come to life.
In essence, the 3 members resolutions that members had asked for (which the auDA Board and CEO in their infinite “wisdom” originally invalidated”) have come to pass.
Here are some excerpts from yesterday’s auDA newsletter:
Publishing of Board Minutes: Given the strength of feeling among members about publishing minutes, agendas and reports on the website, and the shared understanding that commercial-in-confidence and security-related information will be removed, the Board has decided to reinstate this practice. The expanded monthly newsletter will also continue and the board will seek member input on other methods of engagement, including those discussed at the SGM.
Member Code of Conduct: The meeting included a valuable discussion on the Code of Conduct. Members who spoke on this issue expressed their support for a member Code of Conduct, but felt it should be developed in partnership with members. The Board accepts this position and has revoked the current Code of Conduct. A membership consultation process on a new Code of Conduct will be held, and a revised Code will be submitted to the 2017 AGM. A Code of Conduct for Board members will be developed as part of the next phase of governance work and members will have the opportunity to provide input prior to any final decisions.
There was no mention of the 3rd resolution (about building and operating a dedicated registry), but this now appears dead in the water. Looks like we’re back to what was originally supposed to happen – design a specification of what is required for the ultimate Registry, and then go out to tender for a competitive outsourced service.
Before a group of members ever took this massive step of calling a special meeting, we pleaded with auDA to sort these issues out. We were ignored; then rebuffed.
Then, when the S249D application was first served on auDA, the CEO and Company Secretary had a 1 hour 30 minute phone call with me to see if we could resolve some of our “resolutions”. This would avoid the necessity of going to a special members meeting.
As I have written previously, we would have been happy to have Resolutions 1 and 2 accepted, and some assurances and “better language” expressed with regards Resolution 3. Had that have happened, we would have withdrawn the S249D request – and the Chair would still have his job.
The CEO eventually came back and said that 3 out of our 4 resolutions were invalid. So the meeting went ahead, with just the one resolution on the table – the removal of Stuart Benjamin as Director. As I wrote back on July 7th, the solution was simple. But auDA still ignored it.
And here we are today – with every single resolution now resolved (hopefully) in the members favour.
That’s what you call a strategy that backfired spectacularly on auDA. In my opinion of course.
The CEO’s Position
Also in the “Communique” yesterday was this statement:
The Board reiterates its support for the work of CEO Cameron Boardman, which has strengthened auDA’s internal processes and procedures, and importantly increased the security of the DNS.
In the opinion of many members, the CEO is part of the problem with regards recent happenings at auDA. This includes potential conflict of interest allegations with regards the appointment of Dr Michaella Richards as a Demand Class Director (more on this particular topic next week).
Unless Mr Boardman is prepared to have a “Road to Damascus” moment, and change the way he deals with members concerns, then issues will simply fester again.
Ned O’Meara – 4th August 2017