Kate posted the summary I think we should work to. So in that spirit here are
my interpolated comments.
  
  The areas of concern that NOIE think we have to sort out before we're
  going to get community/industry consensus on .au governance are:
  
  1. Stake holders -consensus should be broadly based and inclusive not
     only of key individuals but also of interest groups from both the supply
     and demand sides of the industry;

Demand is two-sided: owners of domain-names, and the general userbase. Both 
have a concern in the 'usability' and 'applicability' of names in use, and
domains that names reside in.

Supply is also multi-faceted. providers of DNS services are either principals
who do so directly for-profit or not-for-profit, or facilitators, who make
profit from arbitrage. We need to distinguish between these classes since the
latter have markedly different motivations to either the prime producer or
the consumer side.
   
  2. Objectives - should be clearly defined and achievable;

NO KIDDING. but this is going to be really hard. To some extent, the achievable
issue is a killer, since anybody with enough clout can in effect veto. How we
overcome this is really not clear to me. I guess clearly defining things may
help avoid problems later on, so its not just motherhood and apple pie.

Maybe we can interpret this as meaning we not only enumerate objectives but
also flag which ones are possibly irreconcileable at this time?
   
  3. Principles - should be identified and include the promotion of
     competition, fair trading and consumer protection;

What are there apart from these three?

	self-consistency of upper-level domains
	outcomes stable, viable longterm

   
  4. Processes for the development of policy, standards, codes, etc should
     be inclusive, transparent and accountable; 

Inclusive meaning consultative. Do we want to suggest a level of time and
review? This is in the context of a lot of people not going to be able to
comment in a short time, and a long time is going to wind the process on beyond
this year. Personally, I think early drafts should float for a few months and
final outcomes for between two and 6 months before acceptance.

Is that too long? (I'm not one of the people who think we need a QUICK FIX)
  
  5. Complaints and dispute resolution mechanisms - consideration needs to
     be given to the requirement to establish an administrative disputes
     resolution process;

If we're not looking at a statutory body, or vested with powers  then this
has to be procedurally fair in a lot of ways. Especially ones which are going
to be tested in court.
   
  6. Compliance and enforcement mechanisms - Consideration should be given
     to the mechanisms and powers required to achieve an effective self
     regulatory regime;

See above. I believe that apart from vesting a body with authority we need
a clear signal from the appropriate agencies that subject to review, they will
look kindly on it acting as a ruling body in context.
   
  7. Funding and resources - resource requirements and funding options need
     to be identified and a self sustaining funding model put in place;

1) free-to-air domains cannot be levied.
2) pay-for-use domains have to fund the totality of the requirement
3) we have a first approximation cost model to run this thing sanely, from
   memory it lies between $100k and $500k to establish. What are the ongoing
   costs?

This begins to look like a levy on commercially managed 2LD under .AU. Does
it have to translate to a per-domain fee?
   
  8. Legislative framework - an assessment needs to be made of the
     requirement for a legislative structure to support an effective self
     regulatory regime.
  
This is really a backfill on 4 5 and 6. This is where I say a statutory body
will win out. 

  If we can't figure out how to deal with *all* of these, not just the
  few that we usually focus on, then we won't get anywhere.  For

I think we can show best effort in a lot of them, try for all, and flag where
we can't find consensus. We're not going to achieve the field.

  instance, it's clear that one of ADNA's major problems has been 4 -
  (lack of) inclusive, transparent and accountable processes... yet other
  than complain about their behaviour we haven't suggested mechanisms
  that would lead to better processes (and from what I wrote yesterday,
  the Nominet setup seems to be attracting similar criticism).

Yes. And it doesn't handle .UK since there are a swag of domains which lie
outside its remit. Interesting to ask if the wider pool of domain-owners are
consulted when new domains are instantiated there...
  
  Number 7, Funding, is also a very difficult one - it might be fine when
  it's all up and running but it's going to need substantial seed money
  and there's almost zero probability of getting it from the government
  -- it *has* to come from "the industry"...
  
The industry are rather fond of suggesting they pass this on to the 'users'
in the widest sense. Personally, I think that we can't pretend this wont
happen, unless we find a way to dictate it MUST NOT happen.

Given the revenues flowing, I think its pointless to sheet it home do domain
owners. However, a levy on domain application, maybe that can work. After all
almost all the work comes from assigning the initial domain-name, not the
maintenance of a magnetic domain on somebodys disk.
  
I think we also need to add something about the expected transition process
from current to new managements, a requirement for safety-belt provisions for
all domains, and some signal that we are in discussion with IANA about their
take on the viability of the models for management we float.

I'm not saying IANA get to decide, but its more than just politeness to ask
what is in effect the peak body worldwide to comment if we are doing something
sane.

cheers
	-George
-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: ggm§dstc.edu.au    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au