Let’s Send A Message To auDA

As most people who follow Domainer know, auDA in their arbitrary fashion have simply decided not to allow 3 out of 4 resolutions at the S249D Meeting. If you disregard auDA’s “spin”, it appears as if they must have been genuinely worried that sufficient members (50.01%) in both classes would have voted for them.

The only resolution that they have allowed to go through for a vote is Resolution 4 :

“That Stuart Benjamin be removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.”

Here is some background information on this resolution.

It’s Ironic

We thought we had an excellent chance of carrying Resolutions 1 and 2; a reasonable chance with Resolution 3; and a slightly less than even chance with Resolution 4. That’s right – we didn’t think we’d quite have the Supply Class numbers required for the removal of Stuart Benjamin.

But now that members have been denied the right to vote on the first three, the only remaining option available to members is Resolution 4.

I reflect the opinions of many members when I say that it is simply despicable that a membership organisation would refuse to allow members to vote on all their resolutions. It is political connivance by those Directors at auDA that sanctioned this censorship.

So let’s send a protest to auDA – please vote in favour of Resolution 4!

For members who cannot attend the meeting in Melbourne on Monday 31st July (3 weeks today), but still wish to vote, a Proxy Form (PDF) with instructions is available. If you have any trouble accessing the proxy form, please email me.

I’m going to be attending the meeting, so I’d be very happy to be your proxy. 🙂

Ned O’Meara – 10th July, 2017



11 thoughts on “Let’s Send A Message To auDA

  • July 10, 2017 at 11:51 am

    auDA would not pretend to negotiate the terms of the resolutions, having decided against it for whatever purpose they invented for themselves; they achieved their aim against what is recognised to be a proper purpose, in order to drive the members into an expensive arbitration that it believes the other party cannot afford.

    4 people like this.
  • July 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I’m a supply class member and I’ll be voting against Benjamin. I think some other registrars will to. Wish we could get rid of Boardman at the same time.

    7 people like this.
    • July 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm

      You should be upset, auDA took away your ability to compete for millions of dollars in revenue by awarding the contract to itself, now the internet community have lost its ability to negotiate a reduction of registration cost. They will soon enough have 10 times their income and be in a financial position to fight anyone who opposes them, even supply.

      4 people like this.
    • July 10, 2017 at 2:14 pm

      The CEO said at the member meet-up that one of the reasons for deciding to build an in-house registry was to avoid being “subject to the whims of investors”. Yet, the Registry Operator who is awarded the tender contract is subject to the terms of that contract with which, auDA is the progenitor and parent of that contract.

      In other words, auDA can be seen as the advocate of a better deal on behalf of registrants instead of, potentially making it worse for registrants. auDA awarding the contract to itself will give auDA exclusive power to regulate their own price performance and that can make investors in this market nervous, not just domain name investors but shareholders invested in listed entities on the ASX that are subject to the whims of auDA, it presents those investors with a perceive inherent risk. And let’s be honest, it seems absurd to suggest auDA will simply cover the cost associated with running a registry service for the purpose of provisioning the registration of domain names.

      Essentially, auDA is ‘subject to the whims of investors’ not from the shareholders of a registry operator but from the market in which provides auDA the very income to survive.

      4 people like this.
  • July 10, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Ned can you email me your address for Proxy form please?

    5 people like this.
    • July 10, 2017 at 1:19 pm

      I was going to ask Ned this same question. Perhaps Ned can post it here…


      2 people like this.
  • July 10, 2017 at 1:06 pm

    On numerous occasions I requested details of the auDA Board Remuneration including that of the Chair. Cameron Boardman auDA CEO has acknowledged the email request but refused to provide the details.

    Is it true the auDA Chair is being paid over $120,000+ AUD per year plus expenses”? Why?

    In comparison CIRA are also the wholesale registry and the role of Chair is far larger.


    CIRA director compensation schedule – Effective November 1, 2013

    Annual Retainer: $20,000
    Fee per meeting (Board/Committee): $700/$300

    There is no additional retainer for the chair in the event that the chair also is the chair of one or more committees.”

    Role of the Chair – Governance Relations

    auDA “talks” a good game in many areas but unfortunately it is often seemingly 99.9% political spin.

    4 people like this.
      • July 10, 2017 at 8:31 pm

        It is a shame auDA would force members to need to go through the process again seeking resolutions but ok.. That’s another one for the future petitions and the next Resolutions list.

        Most people would have had the sense and respect for the organisation and the concerned overwhelming amount of members to have resigned well before now. If it was not for the $$ perhaps …this changes people’s motivation to stubbornly stay against the majority wishes maybe?

        I know many in both Supply and Demand support resolution 4 as they did with resolutions 1, 2 and 3 but they in some cases fear auDA or auDA Board retaliation.. Let’s hope the voting is secret to avoid this concern.

        There are many more votes on stand by if required from what I hear.

        Crazy for auDA to proceed with the Chair remaining and for them not request the Chair resigns now for “Best Practice”. I fear things will only get worse for auDA and the auDA Board if the remuneration cover up becomes an increasing issue and the facts are sought via a member resolution in the future or government enquiry.

        4 people like this.
      • July 10, 2017 at 9:15 pm

        Wow.That is interesting!

        CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – SECT 202B

        Members may obtain information about directors’ remuneration
                     (1)  A company must disclose the remuneration paid to each director of the company or a subsidiary (if any) by the company or by an entity controlled by the company if the company is directed to disclose the information by:

                             (a)  members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting of the company; or

                             (b)  at least 100 members who are entitled to vote at a general meeting of the company.

        The company must disclose all remuneration paid to the director, regardless of whether it is paid to the director in relation to their capacity as director or another capacity.


        3 people like this.
  • July 11, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Stuart is sitting at the top and bears responsibility for both the unconstitutional code of conduct and removal of the minutes.


    Resolution 4 has now become a proxy for resolution 1 & 2. The best chance of getting someone done about the code and the minutes is to vote out the person responsible for bringing them in.

    4 people like this.

Comments are closed.