So a Senior Manager at auDA makes a false statement to their contact in a Government department, and an approval already granted for a domain name on auDA’s Reserved List then goes up in smoke.
When the CEO of auDA is then presented with all the facts, instead of quietly correcting the situation and making things right – as any reasonable person would expect (pub test), she fights it tooth and nail.
And there is one huge question which need answering.
The auDA CEO states as a defence that the Senior Manager “did not knowingly make misleading or untrue statements, because they passed on information provided by a trusted third party that they believed to be true“.
Who is this trusted third party?
I have written today to Rosemary Sinclair (auDA CEO) to ask her this question. As a stakeholder who has been affected by this decision, I believe I am entitled to an answer. But I’m not holding my breath!
Having pieced together the clues, it has to be someone in Federal Government. Confidential sources have told me to look at close associates of the auDA Senior Manager. Thanks to FOI and the AAT, I believe the truth will ultimately come out.
And I intend writing to Minister Paul Fletcher as well. Politicians are well versed on the “Pub Test”.
So who is this trusted third party?
My best guess is this, it must be someone close to the auDA Administration. Could it possibly be auDA’s government observer? Or someone else in the Dept of Comms?
Somebody passed on this “information” to Caroline which found its way to the government person in charge of the decision? As it was untrue, this causes major concern.
Obviously the identity of the person is just speculation on my part, but Rosemary is blaming someone who is trusted for giving this information to Caroline. This resulted in a change of heart made by someone in Government which resulted in Ned’s predicament. Did someone in Government have a bone to pick with Ned or domain investors in general?
The mind boggles with possible permutations.
P.S. here’s a thought, in light of the current director election; is it not the Government observer who approves the nominations committee selection for director candidates? Hmm…..
It would be deeply concerning if an individual in a Government Department is discriminating against Domain Investors.
Let’s hope government representative(s) are not discriminating with prejudice against a class of registrants (members) albeit, such past discrimination has occurred.
As an example: The fact that DoC did not investigate or provide a report into the massive membership flood of foreign persons employed by registrars is enough evidence for me. Further to this appalling act, these foreign members were only members for a mere 2 weeks before they voted themselves out as members because the new condition requires a member to be resident or citizen of Australia, “poof” they disappeared (have you ever seen this before? Foreign members who were members for 2 weeks, uprooted and changed the nature of a regulator deemed to administer critical infrastructure that is sovereign to Australians…. and, in the process voted themselves out of being members at the same time?)
If that wasn’t enough evidence of member oppression and disregard for entrenched and acceptable practices, then what is?
Has anyone at auDA picked up the phone and had a discussion with you about this Ned? A good leader would do this.
Negative. I would have welcomed that. Many things are solved by good communication.