A member of the .au Domain Administrator has had its membership revoked after attempting to be elected to the auDA board of directors, prompting changes to the auDA constitution.
November 24, 2005 (Press Release) --
A member of the .au Domain Administrator has had its membership revoked after attempting to be elected to the auDA board of directors, prompting changes to the auDA constitution.
The membership of law firm Guy & Associates was revoked after more than 75 percent of members passed a special resolution terminating the membership under clause 13.3 of the auDA constitution, which allows for the termination if the member "may have been guilty of conduct detrimental to the interests of auDA or to the objects of auDA".
auDA accused the principal of Guy & Associates, James Guy, of e-mailing a large number of entities urging them to join auDA and offering to pay the AU$22 joining fee if they agreed to vote for him. In the four days after the e-mail was sent, auDA reports receiving approximately 50 applications for "demand class" membership. The current number of demand class members is 61.
Guy said he had attempted to join the auDA board after his complaints to auDA over alleged lack of transparency and competitiveness of some tenders had been ignored. "I spoke to a number of people and tried to get them enrolled in auDA," said Guy. "I had about 40 or 50 people who wanted to join, none of them were accepted."
Guy denies he had offered financial gain in exchange for votes, claiming that he only offered to pay the joining fee. He said that many people had been unable to work out how to get access on the auDA Web site to join.
auDA claimed that 40 applications for membership were submitted from the same IP address, and engaged their solicitors Maddocks to send a letter to the new applicants seeking further clarification of their membership bids.
The letter was "quite an aggressive letter", according to Guy, and had told the recipients there was no need to respond. He said the letter didn't make it clear that if they didn't respond their membership would be rejected. Guy said all the people who had applied for membership had told him they wished to do so.
The situation also prompted two other special resolutions. One prohibits a member from entering into or giving effect to "any contract, arrangement or understanding under which the member (or any associate of the member) has or will receive any material benefit in consideration for voting in a particular way (including not voting) on any matter before a general meeting including any election".
The second, potentially more controversial resolution, restricts any member who joined after 14 October 2003 from voting until they have been a member for at least three months.
The membership of law firm Guy & Associates was revoked after more than 75 percent of members passed a special resolution terminating the membership under clause 13.3 of the auDA constitution, which allows for the termination if the member "may have been guilty of conduct detrimental to the interests of auDA or to the objects of auDA".
auDA accused the principal of Guy & Associates, James Guy, of e-mailing a large number of entities urging them to join auDA and offering to pay the AU$22 joining fee if they agreed to vote for him. In the four days after the e-mail was sent, auDA reports receiving approximately 50 applications for "demand class" membership. The current number of demand class members is 61.
Guy said he had attempted to join the auDA board after his complaints to auDA over alleged lack of transparency and competitiveness of some tenders had been ignored. "I spoke to a number of people and tried to get them enrolled in auDA," said Guy. "I had about 40 or 50 people who wanted to join, none of them were accepted."
Guy denies he had offered financial gain in exchange for votes, claiming that he only offered to pay the joining fee. He said that many people had been unable to work out how to get access on the auDA Web site to join.
auDA claimed that 40 applications for membership were submitted from the same IP address, and engaged their solicitors Maddocks to send a letter to the new applicants seeking further clarification of their membership bids.
The letter was "quite an aggressive letter", according to Guy, and had told the recipients there was no need to respond. He said the letter didn't make it clear that if they didn't respond their membership would be rejected. Guy said all the people who had applied for membership had told him they wished to do so.
The situation also prompted two other special resolutions. One prohibits a member from entering into or giving effect to "any contract, arrangement or understanding under which the member (or any associate of the member) has or will receive any material benefit in consideration for voting in a particular way (including not voting) on any matter before a general meeting including any election".
The second, potentially more controversial resolution, restricts any member who joined after 14 October 2003 from voting until they have been a member for at least three months.
Email
Print
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
