Hi Ian,

Quoting Ian Smith on Friday July 21, 2006:
| 
| Kim, can you provide any insight or background into the resolution
| proposed by (presumably a majority of) the present board, to be:
|  o abolishing the representative association class of membership
|  o absorbing representative association class members into existing
|    demand and supply classes, as appropriate
| bundled with the definition and increasing the number of government
| people and increasing supply and demand directors to four apiece?
| Do you know if any existing rep assoc class members have had anything at
| all to say about this proposal?  If so, where? 

I actually have no insight to provide. I believe the discussions on
this at the board level began after my term on the auDA Board ended.
Hopefully some of the auDA Board members would comment on this.

On the surface, I question the wisdom of some of the constitutional
amendments myself:

a.  Whilst I agree the current constitution too tightly defines
    auDA's remit, I think the new wording isn't specific enough and
    gives auDA the potential to do things far outside its
    generally accepted mandate.

    The discussion when writing the constitution originally was whether
    auDA should be able to participate in issues on other Australia TLDs
    (.cc, .cx, .hm, .nf) if necessary. At the time it was considered
    that it shouldn't hence the current wording. However, I'd argue
    meddling in IP addressing affairs is outside auDA remit beyond any
    narrow need to discuss how it impacts auDA's central operations.

    We need the ability for auDA to take on new activities that the
    members agree (for example, ENUM), but without carte blache to find
    new work. I'm not sure the revised wording is specific enough
    to guard against the latter.

    I think it would be perfectly fine to have a constitutional
    ammendment allowing auDA to participate in ENUM. Should the
    members need to vote to change the constitution each time auDA
    takes on a substantial new activity?

b.  I have no exposure to the Rep. Assoc. discussions, and whether
    that member group is in full accord with the move.

c.  I am concerned with resolution 3, remunerating elected directors.
    I don't see that there is a problem that would be solved by paying
    directors - to attract "suitable candidates" suggests auDA feels it
    is currently hampered with lower calibre board members as a result.
    Unless there is a fuller analysis on why this is needed, my feeling
    is against it.

d.  Electronic voting better suits the auDA community, and in general
    supports the ability to conduct business over the Internet, so I am
    fully in favour of it.

kim