Open Letter to Senator Fifield on Direct AU Consultation.
Just because you keep saying multi-stakeholder doesn’t mean it is.
Senator,
I refer to the attached correspondence from your office received from one of our viewers. auDA – Policy Review
I quote “In September 2107, auDA established a multi-stakeholder advisory panel” . The very first order of business for this panel was to become “multi-stakeholder” by filling the position of Peak Business Body Representative, which still remains unfilled.
From the minutes of the Panel’s first meeting.
“(1) Peak business body representative: John Swinson advised members that he had not received any expressions of interest for the position of peak business body representative. Panel members made various suggestions to fill this vacancy. John Swinson thanked the members for their suggestions but noted that he was in discussions with several peak bodies. He advised members that if he was unable to fill the position that he would recommend to the auDA Board that the TORs are revised to include a corporate representative.”
Literally, the first thing discussed by the panel was to fill this role.
This week I have been in discussion with the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, The Victorian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the NSW Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the Council of Small Business Australia, the Committee for Economic Development Australia and the National Retailers Association. Together these bodies would represent the majority of Australia’s business community.
None of these organisations are aware of direct .AU implementation and the changes to Australia’s namespace.
Why does your office continue to state “multi-stakeholder” when the main stakeholder group, the group with the majority of domain name owners, is not represented at all?
Is your office aware of any industry bodies AUDA has approached to fill the position on the Panel?
Jim’s been here for a while, you know who he is.
