Statement on the Outcome of Today’s SGM Vote to Remove Independent auDA Directors

Posted by auDA on 27 July 2018

The three motions proposed today at a General Meeting of auDA to remove the Chairman and two other Independent Directors from the Board have been rejected by the auDA membership.

Under the dual membership model in auDA’s constitution the proposals were defeated as the Supply class voted overwhelmingly against the resolutions. The Demand members voted in favour of the resolutions. See table below.

The voter turnout for the Demand class was just 29% of those available to vote, while the Supply class turnout was more than double that at 64% of those available to vote exercising their option.

Under the auDA constitution, for a vote to be carried as an ordinary resolution, a majority of both classes is required to support to the motions.

This did not occur. Therefore the motions to remove the Independent Directors were not carried.

It is time now for all members to get behind the reform of auDA as demanded by the federal government.

auDA is not the plaything of a small group of self-interested parties.

It can no longer be run as a club type organisation with a small membership who wield undue influence.

In 2000 the .au network had just 200,000 registrants now it has more than 3.1 million.

auDA must be run in the interest of all stakeholders including businesses whose livelihoods depend on a safe and secure .au namespace and individuals who use .au every day.

As the government noted in its review auDA is no longer fit for purpose and must be reformed and it will be.

If the reform process is derailed by self-interested groups it is not just auDA that will suffer but the Australian community.

The Board will continue to drive the reform agenda not out of self-interest, but in Australia’s interest.

Removal of Director – Suzanne Ewart

Removal of Director – Sandra Hook

Removal of Director – Chris Leptos

A total of 11 proxies were excluded. Ten of the proxies were ineligible as they were submitted by members who did not satisfy the qualification period under the auDA constitution.  One proxy form had insufficient identifying information on it.