Another Point Of View On auDA

Somebody else out there is taking auDA to task. They are doing so via Twitter and a WordPress blog.

However, they have chosen to do so in an anonymous fashion – their identity is not revealed. They are obviously not a “happy camper”. This leads me to think that they are either a current or former employee – or a former Director. That is only speculation on my part however.

I first discovered this when this person started liking and following my Tweets. Just about every time I post an article on here, it gets tweeted – plus the article is replicated on their blog. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery – however, I’m not so sure!

When I reached out to this person (via Twitter messaging) to try and find out who they are, they told me that they prefer to remain anonymous.

Me: “Just intrigued as to why are you tweeting all my posts from Domainer? Regards, Ned”

Them: “Only auDA related ones – appreciate what you are doing in keeping industry honest.”

Them: “I’m interested in a more transparent industry. I think we share that view from what I’ve read of your posts.”

Have A Read For Yourself

Some of their opinions and theories are very strong! I also know for a fact that these are not appreciated by some. 😉 As you will read, they have also attempted to get certain information via Freedom of Information applications. Not much joy there though.

This is their blog.

This is their Twitter account.

Whoever the person is, they are obviously intelligent – as well as technically competent.

If they are a current or former employee, then I can understand and respect their need for anonymity.

If they’re not, then I think they should put their name to what they say. Not to do so is less than desirable. I call things as they are – both good and bad – and I’m always prepared to stand up and be counted. As are most people that I know. Respectful debate is what it’s all about.

As always, in my humble opinion.


Disclaimer 2

3 thoughts on “Another Point Of View On auDA

  • October 3, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Hi Ned,

    That person has a right to remain “anon” and not names themself. Please take into acount they may have a valid reason so why push them and possibly shut them down?

    It is good they are at least speaking out. Most whistleblowers are anon and that is often how real facts can get out.

    For too long auDA acted with impunity against many people. Even if people attended board meetings at the past or at the AGM many did not get listened to or have the right to speak up.

    People feared auDA if they raised any issues, complaints, facts about conflicts of interest, questions about board voting, concerns about surveys, concerns about auDA’s expenditure, concerns about the membership process and cut off deadlines for voting etc would take away their names, put them into ” pending delete”  with no fair process etc.

    Some at auDA have proven to be quite vengeful. They have also spent a lot of money on lawyers in the past to go after people unfairly and cruxify people with follow up auDA press releases.

    There is a list to the moon of people with disturbing information they want to share about auDA but in many cases noone has been listening or others are too gutless to speak up. Even board members seem to have a lot of issues but they also do not speak up and are too scared to even vote on things in the end!

    Neddy I appreciate you wanting people to name themselves but not everyone has a strong platform such as you have with to be protected. Thus you will see not even many people post here on your blog but I know you have thousands of readers per day. why don’t more people post? Maybe if you stopped pushing people for their real names you may get some more great posts and whistleblowers to come forward.

    auDA is the one that needs to be audited properly and put under the microscope. It is time the truth came out and this is the year for that finally after 16 years.

    New fresh blood and a fresh new board at auDA may help plus a lot more involvement from the very lazy Department of Communications. Time for them to do more than just sit at the board meetings and zone out.

    Please accept my post as ” Anon”. It in no way matters what name is written. yes I am a real person and yes These are my thoughts and opinions. I am also a ” whistleblower”  and there are many like me out there. We have serious concerns about auDA and how things have been managed and not managed. I also have concerns about the process of hiring the new CEO. It is shameful if that blogger cannot get some answers on the CEO process. Their questions in the FOI seem more than fair and valid.

    Erhan Karabardak – auDA
    DRAFT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK. Background. This submission is focused on the Appeals Mechanisms auDA has recently.

  • October 3, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    As an example of the lack of transparency, even when Board members ask questions they get no answers or action. This submission by Simon Johnson was made 4 years ago (he wasn’t a Director then). Where is the update from auDA or the now auDA board member who wrote it?

    Here are some excerpts:

    “I recommend that auDA engage in active transparency by publishing detailed, timely information (including relevant documents and decision making processes) on its website. On this basis, auDA members and stakeholders can make informed decisions relating to the organisations performance and its compliance with its obligations”.

    And this:

    “Internal auDA Policies should be published on the auDA website. For example:
    a) Travel Policy: Acceptable use relating to flights, transport and accommodation and matters relating to the accumulation and use of Frequent Flyer Points.

    b) Gifts and Benefits Policy – The issues of whether or not auDA staff accept gifts or benefits. This should include, but is not limited to hospitality and sponsored travel.
    The APS (Australian Public Service) publishes such policy here:

    c) Values and Code of Conduct. Given the nature of auDAs role as a custodian of a public resource, and how companies stand to financially benefit from changes to .au Policy, I believe specific inclusions relating to lobbyists and consultants/advisors are warranted. For example: policy relating to working with lobbyists and post employment as a lobbyist.
    The APS publishes such policy here:

    d) Whistle-blower Policy.”

    And this:

    Observations – Board Minutes

    Section 5.2 refers to the publishing of board minutes. I believe that more detail needs to be provided to auDA Members and stakeholders in this area.
    The current reporting structure ensures that it’s not until the end the year (at the AGM), that auDA members and stakeholders can review information relating to the performance of the organisation. For example: financial statements. In order to make an informed decision about the performance of the organisation, members and stakeholders should have access to such information at least on a quarterly basis.”

Comments are closed.