At the auDA Special General Meeting on the 31st July, the Board and CEO acknowledged to members that there were many things they could have done better in the past. They promised they were now listening, and they committed to change certain things.
And top marks to them – because in the main, they have done so – and by the looks of it, continue to do so. Many of us say “well done”.
One Issue Still Needs Addressing
But there is one vexing issue that the Board really needs to remedy quickly. And that is membership applications. Under 9.9.a of the Constitution, the Board should determine such applications at the very next board meeting.
There are some people that have had their membership applications in for months (and paid their fees), and they have still not been decided. These prospective members feel disenfranchised because they cannot have a say in auDA’s future. They want to vote at this year’s AGM, but under the “3 month rule” in the Constitution, they are ineligible.
Given that auDA encourages new members on their website, they should deal with applications promptly!
Here’s A Constructive Suggestion
Approve these applications at your Board Meeting today, and resolve that the effective date of membership is determined from the date that the application fees were received. In other words, backdate them. This would be seen as a very fair and reasonable decision.
There are many organisations (including Governmental) that determine “effective dates” from date of application or submission – despite such applications maybe not being formally assessed or approved for weeks or months.
Over to you auDA. Please show that you’re still listening.
Ned O’Meara – 26th September 2017
Disclaimer
How long do they need to put up the minutes?
https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/
Why did auDA not warn the affected persons of the delay? Why did those persons need to contact auDA themselves to determine why they weren’tconfirmed as members at the next meeting? Why has auDA not backdated the memberships to try to correct its own breach of its constitution?
Membership processing should be given the highest priority particularly coming up to the period of the three month voting exclusion prior to an AGM. The delay in processing memberships at such an important juncture cannot and should not be ignored.
It would be a terribly unjust scenario if a person’s membership was delayed for no particular reason against that person and that cost the person the election. It would reflect very badly on the board if word got out that the board was against a person’s election as a director and that person missed out on a board position due to the undue delay of membership applications.
And yet again there is no explanation of the circumstances or what auDA is going to do to help those affected. auDA needs to make right and it needs to do so now.
For an organisation that says it is trying to be transparent auDA is being very quiet.
Hi Nicole,
I agree with your observations and analysis.
As an ex- auDA staffer, I can say that we always adhered to due process with regard to handling membership applications promptly and efficiently. Staff performed a quick internal check on applicants to see whether any of us knew the applicant and their affiliation. But this was never a “vetting” process, rather a cursory scan to confirm eligibility status. For example: “oh yes, I have interacted with Applicant X, he/she operates as a reseller for Registrar Y”. Nothing more than that.
It was an administrative exercise and applications were presented to the Board ASAP. Members (or potential members) always knew when the AGM was coming up and were very aware of the deadline relating to the Board meeting 3+ months before that AGM. Yes, this often resulted in a pile of applications coming in during June / July but that was simply part of the process and well understood.
It was a lot like lodging your tax return on time, having accounts audited and presented in accordance with relevant legislation or publishing an Annual Report in a timely manner. An administrative task which, although simple, was understood to be absolutely critical.
However, I cannot comment on delays that are currently occurring – it is not a situation we ever came across over the course of the last decade. You are correct that the Constitution is very clear regarding the Board’s responsibilities and I share your concern that such a simple, though critical, misstep raises concerns about auDA meeting its broader responsibility to remain responsive to, and representative of, the Australian Internet community.
Thanks Paul.
This argument is not over those who filed their applications late. It is about those who filed the applications in enough time for the application to be tabled at the next board meeting which was to be held in time for that new member to vote at the AGM. Given the constitution states that the membership be considered at the next meeting (which is not publicised), the potential member should not have to file the application earlier than indicated by the constitution on the off chance that the application would be delayed.
My concern was not over prior management of applications, my concern was over the current management of membership applications. Not only did auDA not process the applications at that meeting but it also made no attempt, or at least there is no evidence of an attempt, to hold a meeting to process those applications before the cut-off period. The auDA board cannot agrue that it does know what cut-off period applies. Thus it can’t argue that it did not know the problems the delay would cause.
I also note your admission that affiliations are discussed. I accept your comment that it is not a vetting process but it is significant that affiliations are even discussed.
Nicole
Hi Nicole,
I think we are in violent agreement over the current state of affairs regarding pending memberships.
To clarify: I understand that the issue is not late lodgement – but rather applications not being processed and approved in the constitutionally-required timeframe. What I was trying to illustrate in my comment is that this never would have happened in the past.
Also, regarding “affiliations”, this was a necessary step for Supply class applications. Obviously not relevant for Demand.
Agreed.
I absolutely agree that the date of membership should be when an application was properly lodged and paid for. Not when the board got around to accepting it.