Please answer the question :

Who would you have on the board of ADNA ?
Please supply names - if you can't please do not reply.

If you can answer this with names please do otherwise I will take that as
you having no answers.

---------------
No need to read further 
---------------

>  This is a fairly LONG POST.  I tried to cut as much as possible, but some
>  context needs to remain.  HOpefully STephen Baxter and other ADNA members
>  will be able to disect - carefully to retain context - this post, remove
>  some of the replication and perhaps even break it into three or four
>  specific threads. Sorry for typos and Spelling errors, I still don't have a
>  spell checker for Eudora :)
>  
>  
>  >>  Can you tell me honestly you can perform in a capacity with only the
>  >>  interests of things outside of your commercial enterprise? 
>  >
>  >Yes. 
>  >
>  >I joined the process because I thought (and still think) it was broken.
>  
>  If called upon, does this mean you will resign from all
>  Director/Shareholder positions of those COmmercial organisation to sit on
>  the ADNA board for a period of time?
>  
>  >>  If so, I'd truely like to see you sign an agreement as such and submit it
>  >>  to ADNA stating that your commercial enterprise(s) will not undertake any
>  >>  interest in the process unless you personally resign from the ADNA board.
>  >
>  >So my company cannot register domain names any longer !
>  >Yah sure - I will sign that .... not.
>  
>  I think that answers the above question also.  So your saying that your
>  position on ADNA is to fix something, that you claim is broken, so your
>  company can profit from the results?
>  
>  >>  It's too much a conflict of interest and 90% of the time people are on
>  such
>  >>  organisations to serve their interests and not those of the community.
>  >
>  >How and when ?
>  
>  My paragrph above answers that.
>  
>  >One example - Peter Gerrand has what alot of people call a monopoly on
>  >behalf of his company, yet he is being apart of process to remove that
>  >monopoly. Now does that sound self serving ?
>  
>  It puts MIT in a position way in advance of any action to be able to take
>  necessary action to retain the highest possible status they can afford.
>  
>  Just like Optus being introduced to Australia.  It made a big dent in the
>  Telstra/Telecom budgets of the 90's.  Staff became friendly and you always
>  had someone peronable on the phone willing to help and find a soltution.
>  Then around 1995 the apathy and lazyness crept back in to where it is
>  today.  Hard to get an answer on anything.  There are still some good
>  peopel in there, but they are the ones that admit they bach their heads far
>  too often.
>  
>  >>  No, that's not what I said at all.  Stephen, you've been making personal
>  >>  attacks at me for over a year now, it woudl be nice if we could
>  concentrate
>  >>  on issues, rather than personal attacks.  I's so unprofessional.
>  >
>  >Adam, what you are saying is that people involved in the DNS/Internet
>  >community should not be involved in its reform -
>  
>  No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  That's the conclusion you have come
>  to, but not what I've said.
>  
>  >that to me is dillusional.
>  
>  Stephen, to you, lots of things are dillusional, but they happen and
>  progress anyway.
>  
>  >Solve this now by naming people who would survive the regime
>  >you apply to test people.
>  
>  Gosh, now you've actual;ly asked the question I was expecting far earlier.
>  
>  OK.  The problem is to drive a fair organisaiton the members must not have
>  any conflict of interest, otherwise it could be seen they are driving their
>  commercial interests to advantage.
>  
>  The question is - how do you find people who understand and are capable of
>  developing such an organisaiton that do not have a commercial interest.
>  After all the goal of almost every Australian is to make a "sh** load of
>  money overnight" and fly to Spain.
>  
>  >Lawyers are involved in law reform, accounts and lawyers in tax reform,
>  
>  Yes this is true.  But reform in these areas, doesn't necesarily put more
>  money in the pockets of the Lawyers and Accountants.  It makes their life
>  easier to help save time and money fro their clients.
>  
>  What ADNA is proposing - to date - is not unlike the IAHC - restrictive to
>  only those who drin kthe same beer or have a "sh** load of cash in a
>  barrow" waiting to be used to make more.
>  
>  That's not very "Non Profit" or "Community" or "Netizen Concerned" if you
>  ask me. And probably not if you asked some of the highest most credabile
>  DNS people in the world. Whom have hopefully joined this list by now.
>  
>  >IT people even make up policy advisory board for governments (it is shame
>  
>  Yes, mainly because the IT person is paid to do a job, not profits from the
>  revenue the Government makes from the resource.  Governments aren't
>  permitted to PROFIT.  SO the "IT Professionals" do not get an ongoing
>  return for their work, they get paid their consultancy and find another job.
>  
>  Are you going to be paid for your consultancy to ADNA and find another job?
>   No, because as above you have clearly indicated your company WILL profit
>  and continue to sell Domain Names under the current or ADNA regime.  There
>  for your interest in ADNA will foremostly be to benefit your company and
>  it's profit abilities.
>  
>  That makes your membership technically a breach of the ADNA MOA and I'm
>  sure the Corporations Law that governs that MOA.  STEPHEN BAXTER is a
>  DIRETCOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF COMPANY XYZ.  That's a PROFIT company.  That's
>  all that counts in the grand scheme.
>  
>  >that SCAG do not follow this model), would it do to have a janitor's
>  >committee or the local P&C help out here ?
>  
>  Certainly not. But the question then falls to WHO is suitable to help
>  develop this organisation in a fashion that ensures the commercial
>  interests and the community interests are served equally.
>  
>  Perhaps you need a few janitors on the board?  Remember there are highly
>  intelligent people out there who know nothing of Internet and DNS, but know
>  the community and what it will bear.  
>  
>  I would no doubt feel far more confident in ADNA if it had people WHO were
>  not involved in Internet on the baord equal in number to those who are.
>  
>  And ADNA should be open to EVERYONE at ANY LEVEL equally.  If it's a NON
>  PROFIT ORGANISATION and it's goal is to reform AU administration and
>  provide for the community, then WHERE THE HELL IS THE COMMUNITY
>  REPRESENTATION.
>  
>  All I see are Associations made up of Profit oriented companies mostly
>  involved with Internet as their revenue source.
>  
>  I don't see a representative of the Starlight Foundation on the board?  Nor
>  the Fred Hallows Foundation?
>  
>  What about someone from the Westfield and Coles Myers companies?
>  
>  How about some places for Ordinary Joe Blowes to be participants?
>  
>  ADNA concerns ALL of Australia and EVERY AUSTRALIAN, it's as big as if not
>  as important as the Federal Government and I don't see ANYONE currently
>  involved who is suited to carry out and make such decisions on behalf of
>  the community.  I do see plenty of people capable of making decisions on
>  how best to profit and gain market share.
>  
>  >>  I indicated that a person who had a commercial interest in the Internet
>  >>  woudl not make a good Board member ethically under the ADNA rules.  It
>  >>  forms a clear conflict of interest.
>  >
>  >Who involved in the industry would be qualified following that rule ?
>  
>  NONE, probably.  But I've posed a possibel solution above. 
>  
>  What point would ther be in having a board made of people who know nothing?
>   You need a balance of Commercial and Community.  That's where Ethics come
>  into play and you need a totally UNBIASED chairman.  
>  
>  The Chairman has to be someone who has no or minimal background in Internet
>  and has no Commercial interests whatso ever.  This is very important.
>  
>  It creates the unbiased position.  You know - like an Independant?
>  
>  >Please name a couple of people who have experience with the Internet
>  >Industry (a small prerequisite) that is not on the payroll of some company
>  >that may benefit from DNS reform and therefore do not count ?
>  
>  Hang on a sec.  You already have all the Internet Commercial people on the
>  baord.  How about some that are not that look out for the community?
>  
>  Your not thinking wide and clear. Your thinking Small and Profit.  That's
>  the problem with ADNA and that is the problem that casued the fall of the
>  IAHC.
>  
>  ADNA needs to OPEN IT"S DOORS at all times to the public. So the public can
>  participate in the same way a Council operates.
>  
>  It has to have a Question time where the Public can put forward it's
>  questiosn to the Board and have them answered in that session or the next one.
>  
>  >If you have identified a flaw in ADNA please air a fix - name some people,
>  
>  IF?   It's not an IF, it is a clealry identified concern.
>  
>  >the ones involved now are the ones who want to be, who can we draft that
>  >would be able to help us out - please name them ?
>  
>  I would participate in ADNA as a representative of AURSC and affiliated
>  organisations if there are and equal number of COMMUNITY leaders who are
>  not involved with Internet on the Board.
>  
>  I'll have more respect for ADNA if I see community Leaders on the board.
>  
>  It's not up to me to find and name suitable people.  It's up to ADNA's
>  founders who claim to be making a fair, unbiased and community minded
>  decison to find the right people to have on the board.
>  
>  I'll be glad to do this for a fee, as that's what I do professionally.  But
>  again I would not be nominating myself under the current ADNA MOA and
>  rules. nor would I nominate myself whilst the Board consists only of
>  Internet affiliated Commercial organisations.
>  
>  >Please identify people - put them up for scrutiny and then I can send
>  >a message to a public forum calling them biassed if need be as that seems
>  >like an easy thing to do.
>  
>  I've give some possible suitable hints above.  It's up to ADNA to bring and
>  find the people.  Again, if ADNA wishes to pay me a consultancy fee, I'll
>  find people whom would certinly pass any community and commercial scruitiny.
>  
>  [postscript - My wife suggested people like Gillan Polack should be
>  approached.  Gillian was the Vice PResident to the National Jewish Womens
>  something or other.  She has considerable reputation and community
>  credability. Just an example. And is an internet user.)
>  
>  It would put me in a posision so comfortable I would NOT want to sit on the
>  baord at all.  And them most of the adversary to ADAN would vanish.
>  
>  I'd even make a Board seat position available for the ACCC - unconditional.
>  
>  Even reserve a seat for a Federal Liberal and Labour Party Member, no
>  actually forget I even said that.
>  
>  >>  What's to say Your commercial company isn't going to next become a
>  >>  Registrar under the ADNA regime?  Or have you clearly indicated this will
>  >>  NOT occur?
>  >
>  >I do not wear an SE Net hat when I attend ADNA board meetings, as I don't
>  
>  But you are legally bound to act at all times in the interest sof your
>  Company under the Corporations LAW.  If ADNA voted that SE should shut
>  down, would you do it?
>  
>  >when I attend SAIA board meetings. If by my actions I am seen to be biased
>  >in any way then please identify the instance. I have done nothing wrong as
>  
>  The only way you can assert that you are unbiased is to relinquish any
>  commercial interests you have.
>  
>  I've done this before, when I was running for a seat in the State of NSW.
>  I resigned and sold my shares in my company.  I had to make sure I had NO
>  POSSIBLE conflict or other concern.
>  
>  >is the case with the other people working to fix the DNS system in 
>  >Australia - we are just trying to fix not blow more holes in it !
>  
>  You will low more holes in it, if ADNA is made of people with the
>  Corporations Law hanging over their heads.  Can ADNA decide to hand AU
>  Admin over to the ACCC and the State Business Registry Bodies?
>  
>  One would have to think that woudl be the BEST possible solution of all times?
>  
>  Neither have commercial interests and none are permitted to make a profit.
>  
>  >>  As a board member of ADNA you are making decisions that affect commercial
>  >>  enterprise.  It's almost "insider trading" where behind those closed ADNA
>  >>  meeting doors you are privilidged to information I and other organisations
>  >>  are not.  By the time we hear about them from ADNA you've had a two week
>  >>  commercial head start.
>  >
>  >I will not take that as an accusation that I have done something wrong but
>  >that sounds like you have almost accused my of crime.
>  
>  No, it's not an accusation.  It's a discussion statement.  Useful for
>  creating discussion to try and help ward off what might later be seen as
>  such, but right now is accepted as part of the state of affairs.
>  
>  Affairs which we all wish to resolve and see happy.  But someone has to
>  start and ADNA has made a start, it now has to improve it's position.
>  
>  >>  >If you are insinuating that we are doing something other than
>  representing
>  >>  >those bodies than please just say it and we can really get down to
>  >>  >business.
>  >>  
>  >>  I haven't said that either.  I've simply said I see you as a member of a
>  >>  board making decision for a NON PROFIT organisation whislt holding a clear
>  >>  PROFIT motive as a Director (?) or employee of a company that has a clear
>  >>  motivation to dominate a market as a conflict of interest.
>  >
>  >Who would you have heading DNS reform - employees of the NON profit
>  >organisations ?
>  
>  <rofl> Well said. Good question.  The answer is as abvious to you as me.  NO.
>  
>  >This is an issue in your eyes - please tell me who you would have on the
>  >board then ?
>  
>  As stated twice above.
>  
>  >>  Can you ASSURE ME in writing that any decision made by ADNA will not in
>  any
>  >>  way relate to or advantage your company over any other company in
>  >>  Australia?
>  >
>  >Well if we have a more efficient DNS system with more competition then my
>  >company will most likely get more chance to sell more DNS related
>  >products.
>  
>  So you wish to IMPROVE the DNS system by being involved with ADNA so your
>  company can make a profit from selling Domain Names?
>  
>  >So my company, as will every other such similar company will benefit out
>  >of DNS reform.
>  
>  Every Similar company permitted to make the decisions that form the policy
>  for selecting the companies that can sell Doamin Names.
>  
>  OK, will my company be permitted to Sell Domain Names?  I do now.  If ADNA
>  changes the policy and it's members are permitted to and I can't meet the
>  criteria the commercial advantage has changed and that's not very good.
>  
>  >All of my work with ADNA is on behalf of SAIA, SAIA has no official
>  >position on DNS reform except to get it done some time soon. I do not sit
>  >on ADNA as a company director. People can fullfill two roles.
>  
>  Except that your company will eventually profit from selling Domain Names.
>  You've pretty much said that three times in this post.
>  
>  Also you must under Corporations Law sit on ADNA as a respresentative of SE
>  because you must ensure that the interests of SE are put foremost.
>  
>  You can not as a director of SE agree to a decision that will put SE in
>  jepoardy.  So you have a conflict.
>  
>  If I was on the ADNA board and suggested that Domain Name registration were
>  handed over to the State Business Registration Authorities. You woudl not
>  agree.
>  
>  Why not?
>  
>  >>  I didn't make a comment about Tradegate, I have no knowledge of the person
>  >>  or the organisaiton.  At this time I don't feel it necessary to see if the
>  >>  "representative" has commercial interests in the Internet, as I've already
>  >>  pointed out just about every other member does.
>  >
>  >Adam - you pointed out every other member is a member of the Internet
>  >Community - you draw from that fact that this bad. 
>  
>  No, I pointed out that EVERY OTHER MEMBER is operating a COMMERCIAL COMPANY
>  MAKING PROFIT form the Internet Community.
>  
>  Yes I draw from THIS fact that the ADNA board is bad.  It can not server
>  the interests of the community if PROFIT comes first.
>  
>  Will ADNA in the interests of the Community decide that Domain Names under
>  AU will be FREE?  If not, why not?
>  
>  That would clearly be in the interests of the community.
>  
>  And I can think of 200 ways in which it could be done, your company could
>  profit from it and ADNA could maintain control of the Name Space.
>  
>  Not hard really.
>  
>  >>  How can a board be made up of people who have a clear COMMERCIAL interest
>  >>  honestly call themselves UNBIASED and Fairly representing.
>  >
>  >Who in Australian will do  - provide an answer please ?
>  
>  As above.
>  
>  >Most people I know who make up the Internet Organisations happen to work
>  >for companies in the Industry - please find us someone better ?
>  
>  I never said you had to replace the existing people.  I said they were not
>  a suitable group as they stand to make decisions for a Non Profit -
>  organisaiton.
>  
>  >Employees can be biased as well.
>  
>  Unquestionable.  Forget the Employee's as such, they are employed to do
>  jobs, not run organisaitons.
>   
>  >>  >Grow up !
>  >>  
>  >>  No, Stpehen you should start by being IMPERSONAL and concentrating on the
>  >>  issues.  I haven't made one personal attack on you at any time.  You
>  >>  constantly do.
>  
>  Incidently, than you for being IMPERSONAL. It certainly goes a hell of a
>  lot further!
>  
>  >>  Yet again, I reitterate:
>  >>  
>  >>  How can the Board Members of ADNA conform to the terms of the MOA when
>  they
>  >>  are personally directly involved with Profit Making Companies directlry
>  >>  involved with Internet?
>  >
>  >Gets back to the basic question of :
>  >
>  >If the present board members are mostly all biased in your eyes can you
>  >please nominate a select group who may not be (names) ?
>  >
>  >Give us a solution - stones are easy to throw.
>  
>  I hope I've provided some ideas.  If ADNA would like more, then ADNA shodul
>  decide to approach me, in a commercial manner, to which there are then no
>  questions as to what I might feed the Board with.
>  
>  >>  If the members were "employees" of the organisations you quote who are not
>  >>  Directors of, or shareholders of any Internet Commercial Business, i
>  >>  woduln't have an arguement.  Would I?
>  >
>  >OK. SAIA has no employees yet, nor does WAIA (I think they have a NAP
>  >contractor), IIA has Peter Coroneos, asn.au has no employees, MelbourneIT
>  >could send a lower level manager than Peter.
>  
>  Yes, but I think we have covered this as not really being an acceptable
>  solution either, thus other options have been posed.
>  
>  >Now these people will just be taking direction from their boss/board -
>  >just like the present board members do.
>  
>  Yes, exactly.  So scrub that one.
>  
>  >These people still have a requirement to pick up a pay cheque at the end
>  >of the week and if you imply that the bosses are no good but the diggers
>  
>  Nope, your statement here is good.
>  
>  >are then you are still dillusional. If we are all corrupt (or open to
>  
>  Now now, no name calling. You are not a psychiatrist, nor are you wualified
>  to make such a statement.
>  
>  >corruption) then why would people we pay/direct be any different.....
>  
>  True.
>  
>  >The people who sit on the ADNA wear two hats, this was discussed at length
>  >during the DNS forums (a series of meeting held over at least 12 months)
>  >and most people, while they agreed it was imperfect, saw that if a clear
>  >commercial conflict raised its head that could be dealt with after that
>  >was identified.
>  
>  It's been identified.  It now needs to be SOLVED before ADNA proceeds.
>  THis is a claim BEFORE the fact, not AFTER the fact, and if it delays ADNA
>  for 6 months, then so be it.  It woud lbe far better this than all the
>  "Directors" of ADNA be called to the ASC for investigation and charges.  
>  
>  Don't you agree?
>  
>  >A better way to help out would be to join on of the non profit
>  >organisations (or form your own) that are part of ADNA and then exercise
>  >your control as a member of the process.
>  
>  But I can't.  I can't join or create a Non Profit organisation and meet the
>  requirements of the ADNA MOA.  It's completely impossible.
>  
>  I am a member of a non profit organisaiton - AURSC - but I'm also a
>  shareholder in a Regisrty and a Directory of a Marketing company.
>  
>  I stand to make profit from both and both are involved in selling and
>  providing Domain Names.
>  
>  So ethically I can not join ADNA under it's current MOA.
>  
>  Change that, and I can join and feel I'm doing the right thing in the eyes
>  of both the law and the community.
>  
>  I'm frequenty underestimated by you and your mates Stephen.  Money doesn't
>  interest me.  Some of your fellow "friends" should have learnt that some
>  years back.  One day, I won't be underestimated, and everyone will gain
>  from the experience.  Until then, I'm here - I'll oppose very publicly what
>  I feel is opposable and hopefully others will see what I say and understand
>  my logic and agree.  That will form stronger opposition and eventually we
>  all end up back at square one.
>  
>  It would be nice to start at square one and go forward - carefully and
>  fairly for a change. Withouth the "dillusional" attacks and statements.
>  
>  Lets concentrate on the issue and how to solve it, not calling names when
>  you can't think of a solution.
>  
>  I've answered all your questions above, I hope you will take this to the
>  ADNA board and put forward very serious considerations.
>  
>  Again, I'd be happy to join ADNA and the board if the conditions are fair,
>  right now, I'd be seen as in a total conflict of interest and I'm not
>  prepared to put myself in such a position to be questioned.  THat's just a
>  way of creating a diversion from the real facts.
>  
>  ADNA and yourself created the ability for me to question ADNA ethics and
>  interests and those of it's members and Directors.  I'm doing so, because I
>  know it's a strong and powerful method.  If these issues aren't answered
>  there are ways of making them accountable.
>  
>  I'd like to see ADNA achive it's generic goal, because I feel it's
>  necessaru too.  But I'd like to see it done in a manner that works for the
>  majority, not the minority and as the Internet Commercial Staekholders form
>  a very minute Minority of the Australian Population, you need to fill the
>  gap with the majority.
>  
>  I know I speak and stand not alone.
>  
>  
>        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"
>  
>  


Stephen Baxter                            SE Network Access
SE Network Access                         http://www.senet.com.au
Direct Internet Access                    222 Grote Street
phone : +61 8 8221 5221                   Adelaide 5000
fax   : +61 8 8221 5220

(Support Ausbone - do not go quietly into the night !)
                http://www.ausbone.net

<http://www.senet.com.au/~steve/pgp.html for Public Key>