At 16:28 26/02/98 +1100, you wrote:
>The ADNA membership criteria is a significant stumbling-block on which
>there has been no movement.  It
>1.  fails to separate policy from operations.
>2.  creates an exclusive club rather than an inclusive framework.

It sure does.

AURSC is a NON Profit organisation, however I can't become a member to ADNA
because AURSC is funded by profit making companies.  There for it has a bias.

Guess that's how "exclusive clubs" are formed.

>I've been wondering why the criteria were designed in this way.  One can

So a limited number of people with (perhaps) limited ethics could enhance
their own PROFIT companies.

The rule should have read that any Member or Director of ADAN must not have
a SHAREHOLDING or DIRECTORS position with any Company directly or
indirected operating on or profiting from the Internet.

This is not unlike a Member of Parliment who by rights should relinquish
any interests they have in the commercial world - conflict of interest rules.

But of course, ethics reside here.  I'm ethical and under the terms of the
ADNA MOA I can't join because I am a shareholder of a company that makes
profit from the Internet directly and I'm also a Director of a non profit
group that doesn't make money from the Internet.

I'm just too ethical.

>only speculate that the drafters didn't want the body to have a life and
>voice of it's own.  The present population sees the individual voices
>within ADNA all with separate voices in their role with other industry
>orgs.

And if you look closely they all have strategic posisiotns or companies
that do considerably PROFIT from the Internet.


Sounds so much like the IAHC - Hey Robert?

>This has problems:
>
>1. A body that's essentially composed of reps from other
>    bodies is often slow and unwieldy.
>    These are volunteer jobs and people tend to get spread too thin.

Volunteer?  You forget the "members" who are on the current board have
vested Financial Interests in the ADNA process.  

I feel I'm fighting the same battle that has been fought in the USA for the
last 2 years - all over again.  TIme to call in my "buddies."

>2.  No support for broad and inclusive participation.
>    Folks who want to particpate must:
>2.1. become a DNA (sorry, not yet)

Sounds like CORE :)

>2.2. join an industry organisation
>    (which one?  why should I have to?
>    That still doesn't get me onto ADNA!)

What if there is no industry organisation that is a meber of ADNA that you
feel confortable with?

>2.3. Do something spectacular to become a life member
>    (impersonate kre?)

<rofl> That's not easy to do these days.

Have you thought about Beer?  I don't drink Beer, that's why I'm often left
on the outer, because I don't join the hooligans on Friday nights and make
a fool of myself.  I'm too dedicated to my clients (who are probably drunk
and that's why I have clients in the first place) to take their calls in
the wee hours and fix their problems.

>3.  No support for a model that allows hundreds
>    of registrars to compete on price and service.
>    That would leave the policy folks vastly outnumbered.

They don't want HUNDREDS of Registrars. They want a select few.

Just like CORE.  Initially CORE only had space for SEVE registras, but the
arguments were so strong it lead to an OPEN market - but the fee went up
considerably and thus CORE suddenly had this multimillion dollar
applicaiton Income, so it went from 10, to 30 to 80 now sitting at 89.

Where are the ethics and rules?

>4. The funding relationship between the classes of membership
>    is under constant tension.
>    Registrars should pay for the privilege.
>    Policy people get to donate their time, but shouldn't have to
>    pay as well.
>
>A moment to compare this with the gTLD structure, where the IAHC
>drafters provided a means for the community to participate directly.

Errr. Well sort of.  It didnt do much for the most vocal and currenlty the
most supported "community" members.

>Someone full of energy rolls up and asks: "hey, I'm an
>ISP/lawyer/student/journalist/citizen.  How do I get involved?".

>Answer: sign the gTLD-MOU (a set of principles for good government of
>the DNS) and thereby join an advisory body called the PAB, which is sort
>of equivalent to this mailing list.  The PAB then gets to elect part of
>the memberhip of the policy body, the POC (which is what ADNA should
>turn itself into) and the registrars have a life of their own in a
>separate body and provide funding for the whole exercise.  The
>registrars get a couple of non-voting seats on the POC to keep them
>sane.

And we really need this in Australia.  

>So policy and oversight are separate.  The sources of funding don't
>interfere with the framing of policy.  And anyone can participate.  All
>of which are important for public perceptions of legitimacy.

It's an almost NICE idea, but firstly not EVERY can participate because
there will be people who will waste time.  Secondly not everyone is capable
of participating.



      The world operates 24 hours a day ... so do the servers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convery Member
Adam Todd                                 Personal http://adamtodd.ah.net  
						   http://adam.says.sheesh
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network  http://www.ah.net
AU Root Server Confederation              http://aursc.ah.net
AU Internet News  mailto:internet-request&#167;ah.net  with "subscribe"