Regarding the categories of membership proposed in the discussion 
paper, I think it would be unwise to define membership based on
existing groups, such as ATUG, IIA, ISOC-AU, etc, since they will
change over time and new groups will appear, and equally unwise to lump
them all together as "industry".

A better way to think about the membership is to go back to first
principles and see *why* any group has an interest in the first place
in DNS matters, and from that build up a set of "interest sectors".
It seems to me that there are four such sectors:

1) Technical functions
2) Agent transactions
3) Legal resolutions
4) Consumer rights

1) Technical functions: 
   - registry functionality; security, integrity, availability, public-good

2) Agent transactions: 
   - commercial or volunteer trade in names; efficiency, competition,
     customer services

3) Legal resolutions: 
   - trademarks, ownership, "meaning" of names, dispute resolution

4) Consumer rights:
   - needing the other three sectors to operate openly, transparently, 
   accountably, consultatively


Here's a suggested breakdown of the primary interests of the groupings
of the discussion document - but in reality each group would decide for
*itself* which sector was its primary focus.  Each sector could elect
say, 3 board members, for a board of 12 people.

                         (1)         (2)        (3)         (4)
                      Technical     Agent      Legal      Consumer
Registries                x
Registrars/agents                     x                  
Domain name holders                                           x
IIA (ISPs)                            x               
ISOC-AU                   x                               (or x)
ATUG                                             x        (or x)
ACA                                                           x
Tradegate                                        x

(Compare this to the discussion document, with Registries (i.e. 1), 
Registrar/Agents (2) and Domain name holders (4), with all of the other
groups in an "Industry" sector - but this ignores the very different
aims of those groups and overlooks the trademark/ownership/dispute side 
altogether.)

The first three sectors would probably work best with only representatives 
of formal organisations, apart from (1) which would also need to contain 
the existing delegates, at least during a transition period.  The 4th 
sector could have both organisations and individual members.

I don't think 12 (plus chair) is an unworkable size for a board - ISOC-AU 
has 12 directors and it functions perfectly well in practice. 

Kate Lance