As promised my overview of how the regulation system is in need of change, a
bit shorter than expected but a suitable length for the list I feel.

The recent type of responces to the list serve as evidence to support my
theories on the current domain regulation system.

I agree with leading economic experts and current economic theory that there
is a fundamental problem in any economic model where supply of a good or
service is regulated or controlled by a group of suppliers.

A cartel by definition is : A combination of independent business
organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods
by the members.

The difference between a cartel and the current Auda system is that Auda's
control is broken down into 3 sections : supply, demand and association.

BUT if effectively the demand and association representation is controlled
by suppliers or those under the influence of suppliers the model reverts
back to effectively be a cartel.

The problem is further worsened by the Auda board being voted in by members
of Auda, not those effectively forming the demand market.

Really there is little benefit for the average domain purchaser to be a
member of Auda so fair adequate representation of the demand class is not
achieved.

In reality regulation should be handled by a govt department. With the push
in recent years to privatise everything possible there has been no proposal
whatsoever to privatise business name regulation or company name
regulation - because it's not the best model - doesn't work.

The only reason Auda's function is not controlled by the govt is legacy to
the formation of the system - it doesnt mean it is currently the right
system going forward into the following decades. There are very few
political votes in changing the system because domain purchasers
individually don't care enough and the majority of suppliers are content to
make a living with the system as it is - don't rock the boat if you are
making a buck in the current system.

In reality if the govt had control the regulation could be stricter - they
wouldn't have to regulate within the trade practises act as Auda does.

To cut down on postings I will only respond to those who show an
intelligent, informed grasp of the economic theory I've based this post on.



Brad










----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Sexton" <david&#167;dscomputing.au.com>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


> I'm in agreement with Sean.
>
> I'm on this list for the sole purpose of relevant discussion about DNS -
> something that keeps my business together. Whilst I don't mind seeing
plenty
> of related posts, I'm seeing a huge amount of rubbish. Add that to similar
> problems on a few other mailing lists, and I seem to be deleting an awful
lot
> of trash. I don't post on mailing lists very often, I don't need to, but
damn
> it, this is way, way, way past a joke.
>
> The only useful Brad Norrish related posts on this list are when we're
told
> about some other *business venture* that is concerning our customers.
>
> Other than that, I really don't think we need to be discussing him, or
> receiving any posts not directly relevant to DNS.
>
> So, here's a theory. If everyone stops replying to, and quoting from Brads
> posts, we'll be ignoring him. If we ignore him long enough, he'll shut up.
> And if that doesn't work, then perhaps we should look at ignoring everyone
> who insists on making things worse by arguing with him as well.....
> At least this way, we wouldn't be banning him...
>
> Brad, and a few other people on this list seem to be Trolls. For those who
> don't remember the rules we used to use on usenet... Don't feed the
trolls.
>
> Let's get this list back on track people......
>
> Cheers,
> David
> (climbing back in hole....)
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:14 pm, sean.finn wrote:
> > This is a public plea to clean up this list. It has turned into a cess
> > pool again.
> >
> > chmod 444 ./offending_party_ability_to_participate_in_this_list
> >
> > (I.E. Read only).
> >
> > Please ask yourself before posting if your post is either
> > a) constructive, or
> > b) humourous(?).
> > If it is negative, please do not post.
> > If it is inflamatory, please do not post.
> >
> > Should we rename the list the DNS-SH!T-SLINGING-LIST ? or is it to be
> > kept the DNS-DISCUSSION-LIST.
> >
> > I am interested in
> > a) DNS Discussion for positive gain.
> > b) Discussion about Domain Names, Both Australian And Global, as it is
> > my assumption as this list is populated mainly By Australians /
> > Aus-Pacific parties, and .au and other domains (may) impact on this
> > region differnetly than other parts of the world. (i.e. a geographic
> > interest group)
> > c) Technical Discussion about policy / regulation.
> > d) Being alerted of breaches of policy, companies involved, and
> > discussion about this.
> > e) All of the above to be conducted in a couteous manner parallel with
> > the privilege of your position in the domain industry.
> > F) Regular News articles. (Good value).
> > g) other related happenings in the industry (Yes, in fact, the mailed
> > out notices are part of this, and i consider good value, so that when
> > our clients ring, we can tell them to read closely)
> >
> > Do I care if someone is going to whoop skeeve's wifes shopping budget to
> > caress your ego / "emotional damages" or whatever, heck no, unless that
> > party has registered imgunnawhoopskeeve.com.au and its doesn't fit into
> > .au policy.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Sean Finn
> > www.ozservers.com.au
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.
>
>
>