On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 03:09:49PM +1000, Larry Bloch wrote:
> Can we add:
> 9. Naming Policies

The original list is a set of pre-requirements for creating a body for .au
governance.  Actual naming policies are what that body has to produce
and is covered by item 4: 
4. Processes for the development of policy, standards, codes, etc should
   be inclusive, transparent and accountable; 

Rather than try to nut out here and now what policies are and are not
acceptable in a range of domains for a range of interest groups, we
have to set up a *system* for defining those policies - we don't have to
actually do the definitions!  (And if we try to, we'll just end up going
round and round in the circles we're all so familiar with ;-)

If the processes are set up properly then naming policies will be
established by the specific interest groups for those policies, not by us,
and *not* by the board.  Here's how it could be done - like the ACIF model:

* The Board has NOTHING to do with setting standards/naming policies, etc.

* The Board set priorities only, then passes them to a Reference Committee.

* A Reference Committee is set up for a specific task, and must be drawn
  from the members with a clear balance between supply/demand side.

* The Ref. Committee then establishes a Working Party, which can draw upon
  external expertise.

* The Working Party does drafts/gets public comment/iterates until
  consensus is reached.

* If the Ref. Committee is satisfied that consensus is reached, the report
  goes to the Board.

* The report can *only* be knocked back by the Board if:
  o the process hasn't been followed
  o consultation hasn't happened
  o the recommendation is illegal :-)

The Board is completely separated from policy generation, which is the
responsibility of the *members*, following standardised operational
procedures.  

A procedure like this is transparent, is accountable and is inclusive.

If something like this is set up then sane decisions will flow from it
- our problem in all of this debate has been confusion between the
outcomes and the mechanisms to derive those outcomes.  We only have to
build the mechanisms.

Kate