Included in his written response was:
"Earlier today, I was contacted by Adele Ferguson, a highly-regarded investigative journalist from Fairfax. She advised me that she will be publishing a story tomorrow (which may or may not happen) about the ongoing upheavals at auDA. She wanted to solicit comment from me. This, of course, piqued my interest."
He also noted:
"This was a shock - I had / have not seen anything."
"The most serious accusation Ms Ferguson mentioned was that I took my family to Disneyland on the auDA dollar.
Guess what? I did.
auDA had a very clear and well understood policy at the time, whereby staff - after receiving best-available business class airfare and accommodation quotes, could spend up to, but NOT MORE THAN that figure on personal arrangements. As long as we arrived at meetings in a fit and ready state to represent the interests of .au in various fora, we could do what we wished with the arrangements.
My family joined me on a number of international trips. None cost any more than it would have cost to send me alone."
Ms Ferguson also advised me that the supplementary documentation she was provided stated that I had "unfettered" access to an auDA credit card, that there was no accountability regarding my expenditures and that my expenditure was often equivalent to my annual salary. These are her words, not mine - as I still have no access to source materials. All of these accusations are false. Each and every month I had to explain and itemise every charge to my auDA card. To suggest otherwise is an obvious smear against my character.
I cut my teeth in the Australian Public Service, rigidly adhering to the APS Values and Code of Conduct. It is a practice that I transferred to my time at auDA. Currently, the APSC uses the "icare" acronym. Impartial. Committed to service. Accountable. Respectful. Ethical.
My greatest concern regarding the future of auDA and the .au space relates to that final value. How is it ethical, or even even productive, for someone within a very small grouping of people to leak this information to the media, and to do so with a specific focus on one auDA Member that has chosen to lend his voice to a Constitutionally-valid request for an SGM?
I have not worked for auDA (offically) for nearly a year and my last meaningful engagement was in September 2016. The trip to Disneyland? 2011.
I cast no aspersions as to who leaked this information, but it is certainly a serious leak. It is also an ad hominem attack where someone is "playing the man and not the ball".
I will be seeking further legal counsel. I am outraged and disappointed. I have aired my side of the story. I leave it to members and stakeholders to form their own views but I will happily discuss every element of this saga with anyone that seeks to make contact."
Resolution 1 - Vote of no confidence in Cameron Boardman (CEO)
Resolution 2 - Removal of Chris Leptos as a Director
From where I'm sitting, either way you look at it, from the past leadership of Chris Disspain, to the current leadership of Cameron Boardman, auDA appears to have fallen off the train tracks a long time ago, and has been sliding toward the end of a very high cliff ever since.
Today, the train just slid over the side.
Adele Ferguson wrote in her article, "It is understood (Communications Minister Mitch Fifield) will either call for a dismantling of auDA and replacement with a new multi stakeholder model or call for auDA to fix itself."
I'm not sure how anyone can invisiage Minister Mitch Fifield allowing auDA to continue in any sort of form after today?
And with that, how can the current PRP (auDA's self-appointed Policy Review Panel) be allowed to continue? The PRP was invented by auDA around five months ago to help discuss the possible implementation of Direct .AU Registrations.
This has noticably and publicly gone very badly, as we wrote about here: auDA's Policy Review Panel was always doomed.
And as mentioned by a resigning PRP Panel Member here.
By recently allowing current PRP Panel Member, Brett Fenton (CTO of Melbourne IT) to publicly call domain name investors and anyone who sells a domain name for more than $50 an "extortionist" and/or "cybersquatter" auDA made it clear to many members that they didn't hold the value and reputation of Australian domain names very highly at all.
Many members have complained for weeks to John Swinson (PRP Chair) and Cameron Boardman (auDA CEO) about Brett Fenton's public comments and how he should be removed from the PRP. I personally sent them both an email regarding this subject over a week ago. Yet, nothing has been done and many members have simply been ignored.
Is it any wonder we are reading about this catastrophe today?
We all know that Australian domain names are deemed critical infrastructure for Australian online business by the Australian Government, and rightfully so. Our .COM.AU domain names are incredibly important as the location of where an Australian business lives on the internet. Hence, why they are also deemed valuable digital real estate.
Small and large Australian businesses, corporations and domain name investors deserve better governance of our incredibly important Australian domain name space.
Ms Ferguson wrote in her article:
"A report commissioned in August 2016 by then newly-appointed chief executive Cameron Boardman found "systemic and persistent governance deficiencies".
They include inadequate policies and procedures in relation to travel and expenses, poor board processes and rigour in respect to key operational and financial decisions, insufficient financial management and oversight, a culture of mixing personal and business interests and improper behaviour by members of the management team.
The PPB report said governance failings included breakdowns in control, processes, oversight and culture.
"This appears to have been exacerbated by a close relationship between board and executive team members that allowed these issues to occur, along with a lack of internal audit function and avenue for employees to report inappropriate behaviour."
Minister Fifield; what will you do?