And Another Senior auDA Executive Departs

In breaking news, I have been informed that Di Parker (Director Corporate and Regulatory Services and Company Secretary) is leaving auDA. This information came via two separate people in the internet industry today (not auDA Directors or staff).

My understanding is that it was not her choice to leave. Her last official day is tomorrow, but word is that she has not been working out of 1 Collins Street for a number of weeks. According to the Board Minutes of 6th September, she was not present.

What the dickens is going on at auDA? Why has she been forced out? Is it because her honesty and professional standards were not welcomed by some? One can only speculate. I’m sure we will get some spin from the powers that be at auDA either tomorrow or Monday.

As I said publicly at the SGM, Di Parker is (was) an absolute asset to auDA. The organisation and members are (were) lucky to have her. Her integrity and straight-shooting was beyond reproach. My sentiments were echoed on the day by Cameron Boardman (CEO).

What has changed since then?

Members are getting really grumpy now. Having said that, I wonder how remaining staff feel?

This rot has got to stop. The AGM next month should be interesting.

Whilst I am a blogger / commentator and not a journalist, I did call Cameron Boardman for his comment prior to publishing this article. He informed me that a statement will be made by the organisation in the very near future.

Ned O’Meara – 12th October 2017


Disclaimer

10 thoughts on “And Another Senior auDA Executive Departs

  • Avatar
    October 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm
    Permalink

    I wonder if the CEO is aware that these departures look like a failure on his part?

    Gives the feeling that the organization is still out of control especially when the people leaving are those seen in a very positive light.

    Like
    5 people like this.
  • Avatar
    October 15, 2017 at 6:51 am
    Permalink

    Ned, you asked why Di was pushed out. There may be (or may not be) a hint in the minutes from 21 August.

    “Membership Applications The Board agreed to hold over membership applications to the next meeting pending an investigation into any anomalies in the applications.

    Action: Company Secretary to organise for an investigation into the membership applications.”

    So Di was to investigate any anomalies in the applications and now she is gone. That is all in the context where the delay in processing applications has an affect on voting rights and the board composition.

    Does this mean the investigation is stalled, completed or shelved?

     

     

    Like
    8 people like this.
  • Avatar
    October 15, 2017 at 7:51 am
    Permalink

    I feel a need to point out that even the ASD is becoming transparent. http://www.innovationaus.com/2017/10/ASD-disclosure-is-a-good-thing

     

    If the ASD can becoming transparent what is so important about auDA that it can’t?

    Like
    3 people like this.
  • Avatar
    October 15, 2017 at 1:14 pm
    Permalink

    From what I’ve been hearing, morale has been rock bottom at AUDA for a while now and its even worse now after the CEO met with staff on Friday with a story about Parker accepting a redundancy after the board restructured the organisation and that he had nothing to do with it. My understanding is that no one was buying what he was selling. I can’t say I blame them either, I’ve never heard of a board “restructuring” an organisation without any input from the CEO.

    Lets not forget that Boardman was only just appointed in August of last year. So in just over a year, AUDA has had almost 100% turnover as I think only Adam King and John Tomic are left from the ‘old AUDA’. That is just astounding, how can an organisation lose all but two of their staff in less than a year?

    To compound that is now we’ve watched them get rid of an entire level of management. Falk, Hollins and Parker were all appointed by the CEO in the first place in the last 12 months. I don’t think theres any other executive managers left now at AUDA except for the CEO are there? How is it even being managed? I haven’t seen any announcements but then this is AUDA so that doesn’t mean anything I guess. I don’t know how the place is even functioning with morale as bad as it sounds.

    How can the board accept that AUDA is being managed properly? How can government accept that .au is being managed so poorly?

    Like
    4 people like this.
    • Scott.L
      October 16, 2017 at 5:22 pm
      Permalink

      I doubt a redundancy could be offered to someone who was employed for one year, also the role of Secretariat is a position that could not possibly be made redundant. I mean, who has ever heard of an organisation making their company secretary role redundant?

      Like
      2 people like this.
    • Avatar
      October 16, 2017 at 7:06 pm
      Permalink

      @Craig – you have made some rather significant and potentially incendiary statements about the current (supposed) practices of auDA Board & management.

      It is tough to hear, but this is sensitive insight, known by only few.

      I ask, quite genuinely: how sure are you of this information?

  • Scott.L
    October 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm
    Permalink

    Is it really that difficult, its just a simple membership. What could possibly be an abnormality? Perhaps, people actually completed the forms correctly and this shocked auDA and sparked an investigation.

     

    Like
    Anonymous likes this.
  • Avatar
    October 16, 2017 at 8:14 pm
    Permalink

    From the minutes:

    – 6.5 hour in camera meeting on 14th August.
    – 16th August another in camera meeting.
    – 21st August CEO doesn’t attend Board meeting but Company Secretary does. No apology noted or explanation given.
    – 6th September the reverse, CEO attends Board Meeting but Company Secretary doesn’t. Once again no apology noted or explanation given.

    In that same period Rachael Falk and Helen Hollins also mysteriously disappeared. Now Di Parker has left with no explanation from auDA. Sounds to me like the Executive had issues with the CEO so they got rid of them. Is that what has happened with other staff as well? Jo Lim, Paul Szyndler, Vanessa Stanford for example?? I wonder how much money has been paid to these staff to ‘silence’ them???

    What will it take for this Board to take action? They got rid of the old CEO for christ’s sake and he didn’t have SGMs and mass staff exodus!!! Why are they protecting Boardman?

    • Avatar
      October 16, 2017 at 10:07 pm
      Permalink

      Maybe someone needs to very seriously advise auDA and the auDA Board the term “Transparent” does not mean “blank” when it comes to their release of agenda’s, resolutions and minutes.

      No other domain name administration body appears to act in this way.  What is being hidden?

      Perhaps the release of the PPB Investigation and Report may shed some light on at least some questions about auDA but why so many staff and directors leaving?

      Note this FOI response was due today! 16 October 2017.- No response lodged by Dept of Communications yet. Why not… they met auDA last week… are they going to try and stop the release of the information or let’s see?

      https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/au_historical_financial_irregula

      _______________

      A 6.5 hour meeting and what has been made public in relation to the Agenda, Resolutions and Minutes. Little if anything….This appears to be yet again in breach of the auDA Constitution or are all of these meeting just internal staff issues auDA and the Board are spending so much time on neglecting focus other issues and items raised by members and Government?

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

      “3.2 Activities

      Without reducing the effect of clause 4, auDA will see to achieve its principal purposes as set out in clause 3.1 through:

      a. ensuring the continued operational stability of the domain name system in Australia;

      b. establishing mechanisms to ensure it is responsive and accountable to the supply and demand sides of the Australian Internet Community;

      c. the promotion of competition in the provision of domain name services;

      d. the promotion of fair trading;

      e. the promotion of consumer protection;

      f. adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia;

      g. ensuring its operations produce timely outputs which are relevant to the needs of the Australian Internet Community.
      (Amended by Special Resolution, 14 August 2006) “

Comments are closed.