At 06:45 PM 3/07/97 +0000, Kevin Dinn wrote:
>I, like most people are keen to have something set up to oversee the 
>creation of competition in the world of Australian domain names. 

One difficulty ISOC-AU has with ADNA is this vision it seems to have of the
whole .AU namespace being a commercial/competitive thing. It isn't so -
commercial interests have their place at the topmost level, but so do a
whole raft of other concerns, some of which are in direct conflict with
commercial interest. Any top-level body has to be able to see that; we have
our doubts that ADNA does.

>- ADNA should start off by setting up new DNAs for .com.au to 
>  introduce competition.

In general - yup!

In ISOC-AU's opinion, ADNA should start off by getting public input on the
policies and methods it plans to use to select and set up new DNAs. Then it
should get public input on the policies that will govern the operations of
any new DNAs. Then it should go about setting up new DNAs according to those
policies and methods.

>- ADNA takes applications for new 2LDs for use in the commercial 
>  realm and accepts them as long as they aren't too "silly" [Robert 
>  Elz's word]

This bit is personal opinion: This is NOT something ADNA should be doing.
New 2LDs are a matter for a top-level policy body. ADNA is not that.

I don't believe that 2LDs should be created by ADNA for all the same reasons
(oft stated) that ISOC-AU believes ADNA should not be considered for any
role as a top-level body.

Aside from that, the creation of new 2LDs is easy, but their destruction is
well-nigh impossible. Whether they are needed or not is still a matter of
some controversy, too. To create them now, with Australian DNS policy
half-baked and fragmented, would be a major mistake and one very difficult
to correct later.

>- ADNA needs more broad representation especially of both commercial 
>  and private users of domains (Yes, the ADNA board thinks this as 
>  well)

I'm not sure what "private" means - the opposite of commercial? Whatever,
the above sounds like a very good statement. And it's good too see that an
ADNA member is aware of and prepared to work on the issue of representation.

>- ADNA makes no claim to the rest of the .au domains at this stage. 
>  Maybe one day in the fullness of time it may become apparent that 
>  this is appropriate and if so it could happen then.

A good approach for ADNA to take and very much what ISOC-AU would support.

However, ADNA's charter at the moment is very definitely about the entire
.AU domain. Because it was incorporated *before* defining clearly what it
was to be doing and before obtaining the support base it needed to be
effective at that level, it may be somewhat hamstrung by its charter in
efforts to accommodate new demands.

That said, if ADNA were to formally postpone that aspect of its operations
indefinitely, a lot of people would breath a sigh of relief. Once again,
it's good to see that suggestion coming from an ADNA member.

>So how's this for a plan. ADNA goes ahead with the commercial stuff. 
>User groups like ISOC-AU, the Vice Chancelors etc. join ADNA and make 
>sure it doesn't dabble in other things (you will have support from 
>many of the ADNA board members in this).

Hm - you were going so well! Joining ADNA is something that won't happen as
long as ADNA has a stated policy of taking policy control over .AU without
structural changes that make it an acceptable body to do so. Obviously I
only speak for ISOC-AU here, not for the AVCC, CSIRO or the .NET.AU people.

While "change from the inside" is a laudable goal, it's hard to do when the
structure of the body prevents that change.

As far as "commercial stuff" goes, that needs pretty careful definition.
Some people in ADNA (and to be fair, some outside ADNA too) have taken
"commercial" to include .NET.AU. Any attempt by ADNA to "go ahead" in
.NET.AU would be most problematical, since the .NET.AU people do not
acknowledge ADNA's authority over their namespace.

ADNA should stick to .COM.AU.

> We then have first hand 
>representation from the bodies most concerned about ADNA becoming 
>involved in other domains. This will make it possible for ADNA to 
>make decisions as to whether it should take them over and if so 
>under what conditions.

If ADNA is serious about representation, inclusivity and suchlike,
membership of ADNA should not be needed for people to:

   a) know what ADNA is doing
   b) let ADNA know what they think
   c) see genuine responsiveness from ADNA to their concerns

Perhaps I should not read too much into your actual phrasing, but I guess
I'm still worried when I see wording like "ADNA [making] decisions as to
whether it should take them over"... These are not now, and should never be,
decisions for any body to make. They should be decisions that arise from the
needs of the relevant inhabitants of the Australian Internet.

But whatever my reservations, I must say that I'm really pleased and
encouraged to see your message.

Regards, K.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer: kauer§pcug.org.au                    +61-6-2494627 (bh)
           http://www.pcug.org.au/~kauer/       +61-6-2486607 (ah)

Join the Internet Society of Australia! http://www.isoc-au.org.au