Even though your arguments are slightly flawed Mark it's good to see
somebody stick up for Auda with some intelligence. A far cry from the Duuh's
and Eh's very valid points have been responded to in the past or even worse
offenders just putting their head in the sand.

The result of having a cartel type setup from an economic theory viewpoint
would be higher than necessary pricing for the consumer and registration
conditions favouring the members of Auda rather than the registrant. .au
pricing is higher than those of common trading partners and it is highly
arguable that reg conditions do favour Auda over non auda members when
compared to policies of other countries

There would also be an economic distortion towards money being spent by Auda
being greater than expected. This is also highly arguable with the high
amounts spent by Auda on expenses such as CEO wages and staff training.

There is very little political motive for the govt to want to handle the
regulation - even if it is the correct model. The distortions created from
an economic theory viewpoint would disadvantage the average registrant prob
equivalent of only few dollars per year - hardly enough for them to sway
their political preferences - even if they did understand, and definitely
not enough to crack a mention at election time.


Brad


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Hughes" <effectivebusiness&#167;applications.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


> > In reality regulation should be handled by a govt department.
>
> > The only reason Auda's function is not controlled by the govt is legacy
>
> As those of us who have been involved in the "who should regulate the .au
> namespace" issue for many years know (but those with more recent
involvement
> may not be aware)....
>
> The number one reason auDA's function is not controlled by the government
is
> that the government considered the issues, and decided that auDA's
function
> should NOT be controlled by the government.  This was a conscious decision
> on behalf of the Australian Federal Government.
>
> You don't have to take my word for this - or auDA's, or anyone else's
word.
> Ask the government about this, and they'll tell you.
>
> As the Australian government for the last 8 years has philosophically been
a
> strong believer in "less government is good government", they pushed the
> Australian community to take on the task of setting up a Regulatory
> Authority for the .au namespace.
>
> Some people may feel the government did the right thing to not take on the
> job itself; others may feel the government made the wrong decision.
>
> But its unlikely the existing government will reverse its decision.
>
> My personal opinion is that even if at a subsequent election a party with
> more faith in "government having a larger role" were to come to power,
they
> would be reluctant to alter the .au namespace status quo unless there was
a
> helluva clear case that there is a major problem with the existing system.
>
>
>
> Regards, Mark
>
> Mark Hughes
> Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> +61 4 1374 3959
> www.pplications.com.au
> effectivebusiness&#167;applications.com.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad&#167;brad.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2004 1:01 PM
> To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> 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.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> 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.
>
>
>