Bennett makes a strong point - there should really not be any requirement for Kartic to clear anything related to his potential Board position through any Melbourne IT channel. That status quo doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Kartic will support proposals that may be in the industry's interest in general, but against MIT's specifically.

For example, an auDA table of registrar retail prices, were that to be proposed.

Regards,

Larry Bloch 

-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+larry.bloch=netregistry.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Bennett Oprysa
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 4:33 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Kartic Srinivasan (Melbourne IT) auDA board elections statement

> That's not just because it has been officially cleared through proper 
> media channels at Melbourne IT.

errr...what?

If Kartic is standing for election as an auDA board member, he does so 
in his personal capacity, not as representative of Melbourne IT.

The idea that he would ask let alone need approval from his MIT managers 
in regards to anything he does in this role is both absurd and clearly 
prevents him from carrying out his director's duties, a number of which 
require confidentiality, and some of which would be specifically 
detrimental to MIT.

The answers he/they has/have provided you clearly indicate that what he 
is putting forward is indeed MIT's view, not his own....oops...

Bennett.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/