Quoting Anand Kumria on Tuesday May 18, 2004:
| 
| But they have already, haven't they? I do recall the prices dropping.

That was part of their bid. They stated their prices would drop if they
met certain volumes. Someone from AusRegistry pointed out to me
privately just now that they anticipate they will drop their prices
again soon due to increased volume.

| Besides it'd be a very strange commercial contract if there weren't 
| any exit clauses both sides could take. The notion that auDA couldn't 
| effect change if it so desired is very strange.

They won a tender process, and were chosen by an independent evaluation
committee to have been the best option, and since then have operated the
service under the terms of the contract. What grounds are there to exit
the contract?

| > What being a demand-class director has to do with that I have no idea.
| 
| Presumably the intention is to call into question whether you really are
| representing the people who really buy domains.

That is up to others to decide, not me. I think I am, and I think I also
bring a diverse viewpoint that is valuable to the organisation.

My view of the .au space is that it should be operated by a single
not-for-profit registry, an "AUNIC" of sorts, that operates all the open
registries within .au. Effectively similar to the current model, but
instead of letting out the role of registry to tender, it is operated
either by auDA or something closely connected with it.

This is a model that is used by most ccTLDs around the world, and
somewhat similarly by RIRs.

Unfortunately, I have a minority view and the considered views of the
open policy development processes several years ago felt that it was
important to introduce competition as much as possible. This resulted in
the registry function being tendered out. (I would have very much liked
it if an organisation like ISOC-AU created a non-profit registry and
operated it themselves. This is what ISOC has done with .org with their
Public Interest Registry.)

As a director, my role is not to say that the submissions to those
panels and their findings were against my personal opinion and somehow
veto them; rather to ensure that the process had been open and
transparent, and that the panels had adequately represented the public
opinion expressed to them.

Despite what it appears some may think, the auDA board's role is not to
invent substantive policy, but to ensure there are processes that allow
people to contribute to policy development. When it came to devising
the current competitive environment, it was devised by the Competition
Panel, not by the whim of the people on the board.

Personal opinion only.

kim