Mark Hughes wrote:
 > Kate, I think it's about time this issue of ADNA's authority was
 > laid to rest.  For the record:
 (...) 
 > Let us be quite clear from the start, that NO existing Registrar,
 > including those that publicly support ADNA, and those that publicly
 > don't support ADNA, will agree to giving up some of their
 > existing powers to ADNA unless that Registrar is confident
 > that the overall structure of ADNA is satisfactory and that the
 > detailed proposals of ADNA, such as 'Registrar License Conditions'
 > and policy for a specific SLD, etc, are acceptable to that Registrar.

That's what I said :-)  ADNA has no authority to "licence" registrars
in either existing or new SLDs because they haven't convinced any of
the existing registrars that their structure or objectives are
credible.  That's what ISOC-AU was trying to *help* ADNA with -- we
want the situation fixed up as much as anyone, but until you have the
community confidence you're not going anywhere. 
 
 > Suppose we now take some time to examine what
 > happens then.  The existing Registrars will continue
 > with their monopolies.  If that is your
 > objective say so.

My objective is that we build a sustainable DNA system.  That means that
ADNA has to get their overall objectives right *before* they leap into
the detail of creating random new SLDs.

 > My opinion is also that the poor standard and
 > general intellectual shoddyness of submissions
 > from ISOC-AU could easily be misconstrued as an
 > indication that ISCO-AU had no real intention
 > of providing meaningful input and was just
 > trying to muddy the waters in resentment
 > of the concept that any other entity might have
 > a role to play in representing users of the internet.

I'll append below our second submission to ADNA, 4 Nov 1997.  Perhaps
people can figure out for themselves whether or not ISOC-AU was trying
to be constructive.  (I certainly didn't do all this just for the fun 
of it :-)

 > For the record, Kate, could you please post to this
 > list server tomorrow:
 > 
 > 1. The ISOC-AU process to enable competition between
 >    Registrars
 (...) 
 > I do expect to see those ISOC-AU proposals on this list
 > server tomorrow, Kate.
 
The remit of ISOC-AU is a different level from this, as you should know
from *our* M&A.  These kinds of details should be designed by a body
that has the confidence of the community that they are competent and
disinterested enough to do it properly.  ISOC-AU devoted considerable
effort in order to assist ADNA to get that credibility.

ADNA threw away that credibility when they stopped talking to ISOC-AU
because of the following exchange (Dec 17 1997), in which I tried to
make it clear that our duty was to the public good and not to grab a
seat on the ADNA board for the sake of it:

 | It is important to clarify here that the changes ISOC-AU are proposing 
 | are *not* being proposed in order to allow us to join ADNA, but are
 | being proposed as improvements to the structure and direction of ADNA
 | to make its public-trust responsibilities more obvious and to
 | separate policy from operational influences.
 
Scarey stuff, eh?  I have been told privately that this is why the ADNA
board stopped talking to ISOC-AU -- but no public rationale has yet been
given.

Kate Lance

................................................................

Second Submission to ADNA, 4 November 1997
 
I had a discussion on 27th October with Peter, Luke and Nicol, about a
first pass at amending the ADNA A&M.  A number of details that could have 
been problems were sorted out, but we were left with the two objections 
that ISOC-AU raised at the August board meeting: the composition of the 
Board and the separation of policy and implementation.

I took various arguments back to the ISOC-AU board, and our current 
suggestions are below.  They include:

[A] - changes to some nomenclature
[B] - expansion of the Board to include the existing Delegates
[C] - discussion of the role of committees/advisory panels
[D] - additions to the Objects to make explicit the public-trust function 
[E] - Articles on the creation of Second Level Domains and Stewards
[F] - Articles defining requirements that ADNA must impose upon Registrars
[G] - other alterations to A&M to implement suggestions and changes

Kate Lance, for ISOC-AU Directors
 
........................................................................  

[A] - changes to nomenclature
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The emphasis below on nomenclature, while tedious, is important because
if the terms are chosen with simple and clear meanings, that also reflect 
the terms used by global organisations, then the whole process of what 
we're trying to set up here becomes more immediately comprehensible. The 
terms suggested were lifted more-or-less wholesale from the gTLD-MoU :-)

- "Registrar": person or body appointed to operationally manage the .au
  domain or a Second Level Domain within the .au domain.  Previously
  called "Domain Name Administrator", the change would highlight the 
  separation of the -operational- function called domain name administration 
  from the the -policy- function of the company Australian Domain Name 
  Administration.

- "Steward": A person or body appointed by ADNA who represents the
  authority of ADNA over the policy management of the .au domain or a
  Second Level Domain (SLD) within .au.  (We had discussed these as
  "Appointed Delegates") -- this term suggests the public-trust
  function of the role, and differentiates it from the Traditional
  Delegate of the IANA delegations.  Note that ADNA itself would be the
  steward for the .au name space, and also for whichever SLDs did not 
  require significant policy establishment.

- "Traditional Delegate": A person or body who, as at 16th May 1997 (ADNA
  incorporation) had authority over the management of the .au domain or a 
  Second Level Domain within the .au domain.  (Traditional Delegates are 
  exempt from all fees.)
 
In other words, a Traditional Delegate or Steward oversees policy for a
domain; a Registrar manages a domain according to policy set by a
Traditional Delegate or Steward.  At present these roles are somewhat
blended; the intention is to clarify and separate the two roles.


........................................................................  

[B] - expansion of the Board to include the existing Delegates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Currently there are five Traditional Delegates: Robert Elz, Geoff Huston,
Hugh Irvine, Michael Malone and Peter Gerrand.  ISOC-AU proposes that
they automatically have positions on the board by virtue of their
roles as Traditional Delegates.

As Traditional Delegates relinquish authority for .au and the SLDs to
ADNA over time, ADNA may either appoint a new Steward for the domain,
or act as the Steward itself.  Stewards are not automatically board
members, but would chair ADNA Advisory Panels that provide policy
direction for their SLDs.  (The existing Traditional Delegates may also
prefer to define future policy via Advisory Panels.)

Hence the Board is to initially contain the five Traditional Delegates.
The makeup of the rest of it could follow either of the suggestions below:

1) The board would also have six directors elected by the Full
   Members as representatives of non-profit Internet organisations; 
   two directors elected by Associate Members as representatives of the
   Registrars; up to two co-optees; and a casting-vote Chair.  

It is clear that Registrars are already over-represented on the Board
under this scheme, given that four out of the five Traditional
Delegates are also Registrars for their domains.  So an alternative
scheme is to explicitly separate policy and operation by having *no*
board positions for Registrars (other than those already directors by
virtue of being Traditional Delegates) -- input from the Registrars
would derive from something like an Advisory Panel, rather than Board 
representation.

2) Hence the Board would be composed of five Traditional Delegates, 
   six Full Members, up to two co-optees, and a casting-vote Chair.  
   This would emphasize its purely policy oversight role. 

In either case, as Traditional Delegates pass their authority onto ADNA
over time they will leave the Board, and a limited number of Full Members 
could be elected to maintain a broad level of representation, up to
eight members (say) excluding the Traditional Delegates.  

Proposal (2) is ISOC-AU's preferred position.  It allows for complete
separation between policy decisions at Board level and operational
considerations at implementation level, and would prevent potential
problems, such as the commercial objectives of Registrars outweighing 
the public-good objectives of ADNA.  The model is based on the setup 
of the gTLD groups:

    POC - Policy Oversight Committee
    PAB - Policy Advisory Board
    CORE - Committee of Registrars

The POC is the source of policy, members are nominated by Internet
organisations.  The PAB is composed of the entities that signed and
supported the gTLD-MoU and provide advice to the POC; and the CORE
is the Registrars themselves.  Registrars do not sit on the POC -- 
they can be appointed POC observers, but not members.

Within the ADNA context, Registrars would need to have their own form 
of organisation elected by themselves, with substantial autonomy.  

[The PAB equivalent: we discussed at the August Board meeting another
possible category of membership for those groups that wished to be
involved but not as Full members -- perhaps they could become an
advisory committee, self-electing, to provide wider "public-good"
oversight to the whole process.]


........................................................................  

[C] - discussion of the role of committees/advisory panels
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The August Board meeting proposed that committees/advisory panels (C/AP) 
be used as the sources of advice on policy.  

If C/AP are to be appropriate vehicles of policy for the different and
individual requirements of SLDs and their interested parties who do not
necessarily fall into any of the Member categories (such as the AVCC),
then some form of compulsion upon the Board to accept their proposals
(*without* the compulsion being so powerful that it abrogates the
Board's overall policy role) needs to be defined.

The difficulties are:

- currently the board is not bound in any way to act in respect of
  advice from C/AP.
- members and Chairs are appointed as the board sees fit.
- committee powers may be delegated and revoked by the board.
- Ther is no requirement to appoint current Delegates or future Stewards 
  to appropriate domain C/AP.
- Open question as to whether there would be a C/AP per domain or
  per cluster of similar-function domains.
- major unresolved disagreement exists among ADNA board about the number
  and type of C/AP appropriate -- "non-profit" is seen as a problem.

The roles of Delegates/Stewards in driving these groups, their relative
autonomy, their structures, etc., still need further work beyond the
scope of the current discussion, but is clearly something the Board
should work on fairly soon.


........................................................................  

[D] - additions to the Objects to make explicit the public-trust function 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Add to Objects:

(*) The .au and Second Level Domain name space is a public resource and
    is subject to the public trust; 

(*) any administration, use, and/or evolution of the name space is a 
    public policy issue and should be carried out in the interests and 
    service of the public;


........................................................................  
  
[E] - Articles on the creation of Second Level Domains and Stewards
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Note is required: "Traditional Delegates for SLDs cannot have their 
appointments revoked other than by the Traditional Delegate for .au or 
by IANA."
 
   "No new Second Level Domains may be created except by resolution of a
    General Meeting."

   "If a Second Level Domain is created, the Directors may appoint any 
    person or body to be a Steward for the new domain, having regard 
    to <the next paragraph>."

   "No person or body may be appointed to the position of Steward until 
    that person or body has assented in writing to abide by the provisions 
    of the Articles and the Memorandum of Association of ADNA, and minuted 
    ADNA policy."

    "Unless or until a Steward is appointed for a Second Level Domain,
    or if the appointment of a Steward is revoked, ADNA itself will
    act as the Steward for the domain."

    "Stewards will be responsible for establishing policy recommendations
    for their Second Level Domain through consultative processes with 
    the groups and end-users most affected by that policy, however, final
    responsibility for policy rests with ADNA." 

   "The Directors may revoke the appointment of a Steward by resolution."


.......................................................................

[F] - Articles defining requirements that ADNA must impose upon Registrars
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
We discussed the need for these at the meeting, and Nicol's advice was
that they belong in a separate contract for Registrars -- however, we
still believe that the *Directors* must be bound by the A&M to demand
such conditions of Registrars, so A&M requirements on the Directors are
still necessary.

   "The Directors may appoint any person or body to act as a Registrar
    provided only that no person or body shall be appointed a Registrar 
    until that person or body has agreed in writing that:

    (a) the person or body will abide by any policy, guideline or ruling made
        by ADNA which pertains to the administration of the Second Level
        Domain which they are being appointed to administer;

    (b) the administration of the Second Level Domain shall not be delegated,
        outsourced or in any way transferred to another party without the
        consent of the ADNA Board;

    (c) all Domain Name System information, however obtained and wherever
        stored, relating to the Second Level Domain remains at all times the
        property of ADNA;
     
    (d) sale of or trading in any ADNA Second Level Domain information must be
        with the permission of ADNA and must be fully disclosed;

    (e) all ancillary or additional information, however obtained and
        wherever stored, required for the day-to-day operation of the Second
        Level Domain remains at all times the property of ADNA; and

    (f) the person or body will take all practical and appropriate steps to
        ensure the safety, integrity and confidentiality of all data to which
        the above paragraphs apply."

   "The appointment of a Registrar shall be made in writing
    and shall specify at least:

    (a) the name of the person or body to be appointed;
    (b) the date upon which the appointment takes effect;
    (c) the date upon which the appointment ends; and
    (d) the conditions under which the appointment may be terminated prior
        to the date specified in (c)."
 
   "The Directors may revoke the appointment of a Registrar
    only according to the provisions of <previous para>(d)."

.......................................................................

[G] - other alterations to M&A to implement suggestions and changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW DEFINITIONS:

The "Definitions" should be the same in both documents and should have the
following changes/additions:

- "Second Level Domain": A Domain Name immediately below the .au domain in 
   the Domain Name System hierarchy

- "Traditional Delegate": A person or body who, as at 16th May 1997, had 
   authority over the management of the .au domain or a Second Level 
   Domain within the .au domain.

- "Steward": A person or body appointed by ADNA who represents the
   authority of ADNA over the policy management of the .au domain or a
   Second Level Domain within the .au domain.  

- "Registrar": person or body appointed by ADNA to operationally manage 
   the .au domain or a Second Level Domain within the .au domain.

.......................................................................

The .au domain throughout the documents has been written as "au."
and not ".au": apparently this was by design, so an explanation
would be useful.


CHANGES TO MEMORANDUM:

OBJECTS:

- Add items:
(*) The .au and Second Level Domain name space is a public resource and
    is subject to the public trust; 

(*) any administration, use, and/or evolution of the name space is a 
    public policy issue and should be carried out in the interests and 
    service of the public;

- (e) should be "to appoint and remove Stewards and Registrars". 
     Mentioning SLDs is redundant because specified in definitions.

- (f) should be "...Stewards and Registrars...",
  because ADNA will be creating overarching policy.

- Add item "to act as Steward for Second Level Domains for which no
  other Steward has been appointed".

Remove 4.3: There are no other strictures against other activities that
might be "imposed upon" the members of an organisation, so specifying
trade unions only is not appropriate.

.......................................................................


CHANGES TO ARTICLES:

2.8: Membership may be refused only to persons of bodies not meeting the
     appropriate qualification for membership. The applicant must be informed
     of the reasons why the membership was refused.  An appeal and review
     procedure should be considered.

If Proposal (2), that Board does not have Registrars as members, is
accepted, then Associate Members' rights change --

3.3.1(b) "has no right to vote at any general meeting."

Add 4.2.5 - There are no fees for the position of Traditional Delegate.

5.1.4: Remove the bit about assertions damaging to the standing of ADNA.
       (Defamatory imputations, yes; robust criticism, no :-)

10. Board

10.2: Numbers of Directors will have to be altered.

10.3: Constitution of Board should go along these lines:

   "10.3.1  The Board of ADNA (excluding the first Board) shall comprise:
            (a) a non-voting Chair who is elected in accordance with Article
                11.1
            (b) all Traditional Delegates
            (c) a number of persons elected by the Full Members in accordance
                with Article 10.4.1
       ***  (d) a number of persons elected by the Associate Members in
                accordance with article 10.4.2
            (e) up to 2 Directors... (etc)"

*** Yet to be decided, Proposal (2).

10.3.3: Include Traditional Delegates in this para also.

10.5: Nomination for Election

Add 10.5.1: "A person who would be appointed a Director by virtue of 
            being a Traditional Delegate may not be nominated for election."

(...the office of Director becomes vacant:)
Add 10.9.2(c): "if the Director is a Director by virtue of being a 
               Traditional Delegate, and that Director ceases 
               to be a Traditional Delegate."

Add 10.9.3: "A person who is a Director by virtue of being a Traditional 
             Delegate may not be removed from office except in accordance 
             with paragraph 10.9.2(a) or (c)"  [Thats resignation or no 
             longer being a Traditional Delegate]


........................................................................