I think I must be physic, because I have been foreshadowing this.
Having not been given any formal explanation as to why this is now necessary, in my opinion, this is a total backflip of what was previously agreed by the auDA Board.
I’m particularly peed off because it now seems like I also wasted my time being on the working group. As did other members. Why hold these in the first place if this type of thing happens?
And just so there is no misunderstanding, this is the excerpt from the auDA Board Minutes back on the 18th February 2013:
6. Policy Development
2012 Industry Advisory Panel:
The 2012 Industry Advisory Panel Final report and recommendations were circulated to the Board for review and approval. The Board passed the following resolutions (proposed J Rowe, seconded J Hammer):
That the Board accept recommendation 1A:
a) the competitive registry model should be retained;
b) auDA should initiate renegotiations with AusRegistry to extend contractual arrangements for 2, 3 or 4 years;
c) auDA should seek stakeholder input on relevant negotiating factors prior to the renegotiations with AusRegistry;
d) if renegotiations with AusRegistry fail, auDA should proceed to conduct a formal RFT process; and
e) the auDA Board should publicly commit to undertaking a formal RFT process once the renegotiated registry agreement expires.
Read this post that I wrote back on November 15.
Interesting also that this “news” is released less than 2 weeks before Christmas – smacks of “opportunistic political timing” to me.
What do you think?
Ned O’Meara – 13th December 2016