Big Fail On Special Resolution

At the auDA AGM on Monday, Item 8 on the agenda was a special resolution proposed by former auDA Director Simon Johnson. For completeness, I should add that this was supposedly proposed in his private capacity as a Demand Class member.

Special Resolution — Amendment of Constitution:

Fit and Proper Persons Test, proposed by demand class member Simon Johnson

This was overwhelmingly voted down.

In fact, when the Chair asked both Demand and Supply Class members in the room (separately) who was in favour, not one person raised their “green card”. When asked who was against, there was a sea of green.

These Are The Questions That Remain Unanswered

As per my article dated 23rd November:

a. Given that the proposer was also an auDA Director at the time, was this resolution first discussed with any other auDA Directors (or the CEO) before being added to the Agenda?

b. Was it first vetted by auDA lawyers to ensure it was capable of being enacted? i.e. Not in conflict with other parts of the Constitution; or the Corporations Act?

c. Given auDA’s commitment to the Government that it will be responsive to the wider internet community, could the adoption of this resolution preclude or disenfranchise certain people?

d. What process has been adopted for members to put up resolutions for consideration at the AGM? Have members been informed that this process is available to all? If not, why not?

auDA members are really tired of being ignored, and want a return to transparency and communication.

That was part of the platform that Nicole and I ran on – and the emphatic vote we received should be a wake-up call to auDA.

Ned O’Meara – 29th November 2017


Disclaimer

3 thoughts on “Big Fail On Special Resolution

  • Avatar
    November 29, 2017 at 11:56 am
    Permalink

    I am strongly against this concept of directors having the power to remove members without a member vote.

    It is an attempted power grab, taking rights members have and giving them to a group of directors sitting behind closed doors. In essence 6 directors could have removed a member, even less if some directors aren’t in attendance or abstain from a vote, or if some director positions are vacant at the time of the vote.

    Even if the resolution was more moderate on who it would target I still think it would have failed.

    Like
    2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    November 29, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Permalink

    We must be a pretty rowdy bunch.

    How many members have been kicked out since auDA came into being?

    Seems like a distraction?

    Like
    Anonymous likes this.
    • Ned O'Meara
      November 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm
      Permalink

      @David and @Snoopy

      I believe this was a direct attack on me. There was no reason not to wait for the CRC / CAC to come up with their suggestions as to memberships and Codes of Conduct etc.

      Like
      2 people like this.

Comments are closed.