I'm sending this to iamems as well, since this has
been the trend till now.  However, could I suggest
that the discussion be moved to the dns list?  For
those that aren't already on the DNS list, you can
join by sending email to dns-request§intiaa.asn.au
with the word "subscribe" in the body of the email.

Onwards.

Thus far, ISOC has simply said "I don't like it", rather
than making any positive suggestions.  Personally, I find
this very frustrating, since quite obviously I can't see
what their problem is.  Contrary to what Karl Auer says,
ISOC-AU does have a responsibility to do more than complain
if it wishes to obtain credibility.  You need to offer
specific suggestions for change.  However, it may be that
ISOC simply doesn't have any.  Let's base it on some
associations I have been involved in, but remember I'm a
non voting member of ADNA.

WAIA had quite a few conflicts during its incorporation
phase.  We wanted to create a body that was "one voice"
for the Internet in WA.  We didn't want to have a consumer
group, and an industry group, and an IAP group and ...
We wanted to have all conflicts hidden away under WAIA,
with the final statements emerging as a fair reflection
of all interests.

However, in the end, it was obvious that there were only
a handful of IAPs, and lots and lots of users.  I'd equate
this with the name space.  There are only a handful of
Universities (36?) but teems of commercial bodies.  Like
the WA IAPs, the AVCC doesn't want a majority making rules
that effect EDU.AU directly (eg: let's decommission uwa.edu.au
since they -still- haven't paid their registration fee)

I've see a few different answers to this problem.  The WAIA
solution (which most of you are probably tired of hearing
about) was to split the membership into different classes.
These are currently IAPs and Non IAPs (a third class is
currently under review for consideration at this years AGM).
If an "issue" is ruled by the chair to be an "IAP issue",
then it must receive a majority membership vote, -and- a
majority IAP vote to be passed.  IAPs and non IAPs also
receive equal representation at board level.

So, let's begin by looking at EDU.AU alone.  The "key"
stake holder is clearly the AVCC at this point in time.
Others would argue that the TAFE sector and schools
are also or will one day be particularly vocal and important
stake holders.

Some suggestions from this (and remember I am only looking
at EDU.AU.  These suggestions may work for GOV.AU, but ORG.AU
and ASN.AU, not to mention new domains, are going to be
interested).

Proposal One
------------

ADNA simply modifies its MoU to require one board position to
be reserved for the AVCC or a nominee of the AVCC.

This has the advantage of board representation, but quite
obviously, its only one voice among X anyway, so the commercial
bad guys can still kick UWA off the DNS.


Proposal One A
--------------

ADNA modifies its MoU to require one board position to be reserved
for the AVCC or a nominee of the AVCC.  This nominee has a power
of veto on any regulation or motion passed by ADNA which would
in any way effect the operations of EDU.AU

This is better in some ways, but it probably fails to allow for
any significant changes in the EDU.AU profile in the future.  The
priorities of primary schools may be difficult to communicate to
the AVCC.


Proposal Two
------------

Each new member to ADNA nominates a name space which it believes
itself to have the highest stake in.  The board may veto
ridiculous allocations (eg: Tradegate nominating GOV.AU.  This
may be fair for some of its members, but realistically, Tradegate
is focussed on the commercial end user more than any other
single sector).  Votes by ADNA need to be ratified by the
general membership, plus if they effect a particular domain, then
the members that have nominated that domain must also ratify it.

This is getting a little complex, but I hope its still readable.
Let's say that the AVCC and the National Council of TAFE colleges
joined and both nominated EDU.AU as their sector.  If any vote
was proposed at an ADNA meeting, it would have to be passed by
general membership, and then also agreed upon by a majority of
EDU.AU members (ie: both of them).  This method always favours
a status quo of course, since the default action without
agreement is to change nothing.

I like this one, but it has disadvantages as well.  For instance,
it may be that the AVCC's voice is quickly diluted by secondary
level bodies, whose views aren't quite in step with the AVCC.

Secondly, there are many organisations that cross boundaries.
Should ISOC-AU's sector be ID.AU?  Where does WAIA fit in?  We
could have a reasonably serious claim that we best represent
NET.AU (for our IAP members), COM.AU (for corporate members)
or ID.AU (for individual end users).  Some organisations don't
clearly have any -specific- focus within the name space (eg: ATUG)



Comments?  Is this roughly the direction that ISOC wishes this
debate to take?

MM