Hi Folks

I watch this stuff with utter amazement and wonder sometimes what we are
really trying to achieve.  We are really perfecting the art of finding all
of the reasons why we shouldn't do something rather than the one reason why
it should be done.  As a Texan colleague commented: "Seems to me like they
are straining at gnats and eating elephants".

I have spent the last 15 hard years in small business trying to build my
business and name recognition, only to find that some arbitrary group of
people can actually claim they own the rights to my business name.  I see
lots of words about self-regulated industry; but, which industry (internet,
communications, consultancy, etc)?  Who was on these various panels, boards,
etc that were non-internet oriented small business people actually wrestling
with the wrath imposed upon us.  I don't mean someone who writes policy or
are supposed peak bodies for small business, I mean "in the trenches" type
folks to whom the internet is simply a convenient tool and not a life style
or a future gravy train.

We are encouraged to establish best practices, whatever that means.  But,
anyone of us can only draw on our experiences and these are mine.  It seems
to me that the culture we have is reminiscent of Telecom of the 1970s.
Also, I have a chronically ill disabled daughter and this is a continuous
struggle to access services, rights, etc for her needs.  After 13 years of
that experience and 2 years of trying to understand this domain name saga,
in my opinion this system is significantly worse than seeking support for
disabled people.

I think it has been totally irresponsible of Government to digitally
disenfranchise every business name in this country.  Personally speaking, I
think the Government should not be hands-off as I don't believe the identity
protection of a business or person should be abdicated to some
self-appointed group.  It could be at arms length by tasking the Australian
National Audit Office to carry out an independent audit of MelbourneIT and
auDAs policies, practices and decisions since October 1996.

How can you get your governance right when the governance at the
Commonwealth level can be shown to be dysfunctional.

There seems to be a lot of effort trying to invent something that doesn't
need to be invented.  It has been around in various forms for decades.  For
example, in the days of the telegram it was possible to have a telegraphic
address, and as far as I recall there was no stupid restriction of declining
a company its name because someone thought it was generic or some other
equally illogical reason.  If I recall right, it actually had a first in
best dressed rule. As a process, is the internet simply a point-to-point
real time enhanced telegram service?  If so, then why are we trying to
re-invent the wheel?  Is it so we can give up our sovereignty to
globalisation?

I am all for any process that has integrity and equity.  I don't believe we
are there yet.  There are some of us who understand the system much better
than you think, and see extremely high risks for some of the directions
taken and being proposed.  Maybe some of us have experiences that could
positively contribute to the body of knowledge, if only it was possible to
penetrate the parochial group think culture.

"A riot is the voice of the unheard".  Martin Luther King.

Rgds

Adrian


===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan§ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan§logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick§quad.net.au]
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2001 1:56 AM
To: Ian Smith
Cc: [dns] auda
Subject: Re: [DNS] Nomination as auDA Director


********* auDA Director Speaking Personally *******

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:36:06 +1100 (EST), Ian Smith wrote:

> Naturally I wouldn't envy anyone from the 'community sector' in such an
> environment, I'm sure it would be frustrating, hard work.  The way the
> APANA tender - a terrific effort given the time available I must say -
> was rejected for being a few hours late . . .

Hi Ian

I am sure it was a fine effort but, nevertheless, I am surprised to hear
comments of this nature.  The terms were quite explicit.  I'll make a few
comparisons and comments on my own behalf.

The other day I went to a house auction.  It was advertised at 2:00 pm.  The
bidding was brisk and the house was sold within 10 to 15 minutes, max.  I
did not buy the house myself.  After the sale concluded, a prospective buyer
turned up late.  They were shocked that the sale was over.  Pity but there
was no chance of starting over.  Put yourself in the auctioneer's position.

I've seen similar situations reported with prospective Parliamentary
candidates who fail to lodge their application by the specified time.  And
everyone knows a tender closes exactly at the time stated.  It really is a
sensitive commercial transaction.

Formerly I was a University student then later worked as a lecturer.  I
learned the lesson about submitting late assignments as a student and
applied the same rules as a lecturer.  The rule was publicised widely and
applied strictly.

I have been criticised on this list for favouring compliance with "the
rules".  But I assure you that, as an auDA director, I would be unforgiving
if the CEO relaxed the rules and, as a result, created a threat of legal
action from the other tenderers.

> . . . and AuDA's quoted response to
> Robert Elz' refusal to be so far forced out of his org.au and id.au
> delegations shows clearly just what sort of front body AuDA has become.

The DNS is a hierarchical system.  The holder of DOT allocates the Top Level
Domain AU to auDA who then allocates the Second Level Domains at its
discretion.  Robert Elz knows that quite well.  However, I'll refrain from
further comment at this time.

> The similarities with recent, not dissimilar, political and commercial
> interference with the board and management of the ABC are obvious, as
> are the likely consequences to the non-commercial internet community.

Huh ??  Is that drawing a long bow, or what ?  There's no comparison and I'd
ask you not to make such generalisations.  I for one have every confidence
in our CEO unlike the ABC who got rid of Shier.  As well, the Australian
government has never interfered with the activities of the auDA Board while
I have been a director.  Never.

There is no doubt the government maintains a "watching brief" but their
view, as far as I can tell, is to allow true industry self regulation.  I
strongly support that approach. As well, I am particularly cautious to
ensure a proper balance is maintained, in the decision making process,
between "supply" and "demand" as well as "organisations".

<snip>

> I expect to Don, but meanwhile do hope you will reconsider withdrawing.

Don is welcome to stand as a member of the Board as is anyone who meets the
relevant criteria.  I say that sincerely.  Personally, I came on the Board
quite independently and, whilst I knew the then CEO from the DNS mailing
list, I knew nobody on the then Board.

Believe me, it is truly a worthwhile and interesting endeavour.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Speaking Personally




--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 323 subscribers.
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 321 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.