auDA AGM / james guy board exclusion timing of announcement

auDA AGM / james guy board exclusion timing of announcement

From: Jason Pay <jasonpay§>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:12:00 +1000
I just received the AGM notification, 

IMO it is really unreasonable to only allow 24 hours to submit proxy 

At least a week should be allowed for proxy form submission and the AGM 
date announcement should be more than a week before the actual date.

This really has annoyed me as 24 hours to take action is unreasonable.

Was the info in the auda-members email the first place the info was 

The last AGM was on the 11th of oct. why is this one earlier? 

What's the story with the timing of this announcement, is it done to 
reduce the participation of auDA members? timing seems to be a bit sus to 

And what's with the proposal to cancel the membership of Guy and 

James Guy has annoyed me aswell as others but he is a paid member and it 
appears that someone has gone to great lengths to ensure that his election 
to the board is not an option.

There is nothing wrong with the email auDA has alleged James Guy sent out.
There is no argument that it is detrimental to auDA - but someone up for 
re-election could argue that it is detrimental to their likelihood of 
being re-elected which has nothing to do with the good of auDA as an 

There is nothing stopping anyone from soliciting people to join auDA with 
the aim of using their votes to ensure that they get onto the board. like 
branch stacking...  there is nothing stopping the person from paying for 
someone else's membership, in fact it happens all the time with political 

The memorandum states that many application for membership came from one 
IP address, - this means absolutely nothing. maybe there was party or a 

Two people out of the 40 signups have stated that they did not sign up 
themselves, maybe they gave someone permission to sign them up?
My question is, what led to the investigation in the first place, have a 
few people on the board got their nose out of joint? 

The memorandum also states that auDA have asked for statements from all 
alleged dodgy signups, lets wait till all responses have been addressed 
before voting on excluding James guy from auDA. Or should he be judged 
before all the evidence has been collated. If he has done something wrong 
then the proposal can be voted on after the AGM.

The way I see it is that someone on the auDA board has :

1. singled out James guy
2. made exaggerated (a conclusion cannot be made based on 2/40 responses) 
claims that James guy has acted improperly.
3. auDA board members don't want James guy on the board because the board 
may end up having to be more transparent with their decisions.
4. some board member(s) proposed that James guy get booted from auDA 
membership so he cant stand as a board member reducing the competition, 
and based on number of members in the class, increase their likelihood of 

IMO this is evidence to suggest that the current board are acting in bad 
faith with is detrimental to the auDA organisation.

I have a lot more to say about this crap but I just can be bothered, it 
all leads me to believe that the current board thing auDA is a little club 
and they are trying to influence the outcome of an election in their 

I'd be at the AGM but because the date was announced so late in the piece 
I cant make it. I just hope that the members that do turn up and the 
members who have the proxy voting power use those votes to do the right 

I think that all members should all take a good look at auDA and ensure 
that next year, this sort of crap doesn't happen again.

Maybe a petition to the telecommunications minister to dissolve auDA and 
make it a government department accountable directly to the minister 
should be 
proposed because it seems that auDA are not acting for the best interested 
of the people and organisations who auDA are charged with representing.

OK, enough from me, the timing thing had really annoyed me, I wouldn't be 
so upset if they had allowed a reasonable time frame for proxy vote 
allocation and time to organise getting to the AGM.

Maybe the re-elected /newly elected board members can ensure that there is 
a reasonable time between the announcement and the time of the AGM for 
next year. or maybe they will do the same thing again?


Jason Pay
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC