The ADNA membership criteria is a significant stumbling-block on which
there has been no movement.  It
1.  fails to separate policy from operations.
2.  creates an exclusive club rather than an inclusive framework.

I've been wondering why the criteria were designed in this way.  One can
only speculate that the drafters didn't want the body to have a life and
voice of it's own.  The present population sees the individual voices
within ADNA all with separate voices in their role with other industry
orgs.

This has problems:

1. A body that's essentially composed of reps from other
    bodies is often slow and unwieldy.
    These are volunteer jobs and people tend to get spread too thin.

2.  No support for broad and inclusive participation.
    Folks who want to particpate must:
2.1. become a DNA (sorry, not yet)
2.2. join an industry organisation
    (which one?  why should I have to?
    That still doesn't get me onto ADNA!)
2.3. Do something spectacular to become a life member
    (impersonate kre?)

3.  No support for a model that allows hundreds
    of registrars to compete on price and service.
    That would leave the policy folks vastly outnumbered.

4. The funding relationship between the classes of membership
    is under constant tension.
    Registrars should pay for the privilege.
    Policy people get to donate their time, but shouldn't have to
    pay as well.

A moment to compare this with the gTLD structure, where the IAHC
drafters provided a means for the community to participate directly.

Someone full of energy rolls up and asks: "hey, I'm an
ISP/lawyer/student/journalist/citizen.  How do I get involved?".
Answer: sign the gTLD-MOU (a set of principles for good government of
the DNS) and thereby join an advisory body called the PAB, which is sort
of equivalent to this mailing list.  The PAB then gets to elect part of
the memberhip of the policy body, the POC (which is what ADNA should
turn itself into) and the registrars have a life of their own in a
separate body and provide funding for the whole exercise.  The
registrars get a couple of non-voting seats on the POC to keep them
sane.

So policy and oversight are separate.  The sources of funding don't
interfere with the framing of policy.  And anyone can participate.  All
of which are important for public perceptions of legitimacy.

Leni.

Kate Lance wrote:

> | How does one become a member of ADNA?
>
> >From the ADNA Memorandum of Association: (see
> http://www.adna.asn.au/)
>
>  2.2.1 ADNA consists of the following classes of members:
>          Full Members; Associate Members; and Life Members.
>
>  2.3 Qualification for Full Membership
>        Any Organisation that is a non-profit organisation, its objects
>
>        including the development and furtherance of the Internet or
> aspects
>        of the Internet, may apply to be a Full Member.
>
>  2.4 Qualification for Associate Membership
>        Any Domain Name Administrator may apply to become an Associate
> Member.
>
>  2.5 Qualification for Life Membership
>        Any natural person, Organisation or Entity that has rendered
>        distinguished service to ADNA, or the objects of ADNA may be
> admitted
>        by a resolution of the Board as a Life Member.
>
>
> | How does one go about becoming a board member of ADNA?
>
> Full and Associate members pay $1000 a year fees.
> Up to 6 Board members are nominated and elected by the Full members,
> and 2 Board members are nominated and elected by the Associate
> members.
> A Life member has no voting rights.
>
>
> | If not what is the most effective way of having ones opinions and
> those of
> | numerous others heard by the board?
>
> I'm not sure.  ISOC-AU has been in discussion with ADNA since August
> 1997
> (as discussed in their meeting minutes) without any effective progress
>
> being apparent.
>
> Kate Lance