> > 1. Do any of the current directors of ADNA plan to be involved with any > entity, be it director, shareholder or some other connection (ie: inter > company shareholdings etc) which shall bid for a role as a DNS registrar. Our company has no such plan at this time, it is not even on the drawing board. My motivation for joining the process was born from the frustration of waiting months on end for domain name rejections, for the want of a more professional system, to see a very diverse DNS system, not just the present 2LD's but others. This is what I want - I will work to that end on behalf of the SAIA. The opinions we have had raised in SAIA the last time it was spoken about was that any move to more open and fair competition and access to DNS services regardless of the 2LD is a good thing. > If so would it not be better to resign and cause no further conflic of > interest debate. > > It is obvious that Peter Gerrand will remain as CEO of MiT and that they > will remain as a DNS registrar so would Peter stand aside and let the board > vote on a replacement. The only way that ADNA can actually get any control over any name spaace policy in Australia is to get concencus and lots of it, we need concensus from two main areas and one other : o The Internet community : business and user groups, educational, government (gov users not regulatory); o The present stake holders under .au : o .au o com.au o net.au o edu.au, gov.au o asn.au o org.au o anybody else I forgot (mainstream heirachy - not unrecognised offshoots) [this is not a statement that says ADNA wants it all - this is not a statement that says ADNA plans to 'get control' of the above mentioned domains - this is merely a 2LD listing and other - nothing more - people or DNS groupings that make sense to have involved.] o The government appointed regulatory body if the ACA sees fit. > This would solve some of the conflict of interest debate, Peter could still > be involved through consultantion etc. Peter/MIT are a voluntary part of the debate and the process, all stake holders are needed at the table - ADNA (nor any other body) can force anything at all (maybe the ACA if things fall to hell). It requires cooperation. I beleive it is better to get all stakeholders as it stands now to A table - somewhere. I beleive that the meetings should be more public and have stated so on this list. I look forward to seeing pressure brought to bear that list real changes that can be made. Do not expect people to help you to change something when they do not see it as broken (if at all) as perhaps you do. We all really want answers, we all really a fairer DNS system in Australia, please help to reach our goal by suggestions. If you believe we are all biased please do not expect us to step aside when there is none to replace us - please help us find answers - if we are biassed then find people to depose us - do not just tell us to go. We need people on ADNA who will work to an end for the group they represent (non profit organisations) and to give usefull and constructive input. ADNA needs a more independant chairperson (the original name that was floated was a Roger [BD].... - cannot remember or find my original notes), this was identified at the first meeting - it would be a great start if an independant one of those could be found by the Adelaide meeting (if the meeting is in Adelaide, I have two responses from ADNA members who see no problem with this so I suppose that makes it three in favour). Does anybody have a name that we could float as a chairperson ? Stephen Baxter SE Network Access SE Network Access http://www.senet.com.au Direct Internet Access 222 Grote Street phone : +61 8 8221 5221 Adelaide 5000 fax : +61 8 8221 5220 (Support Ausbone - do not go quietly into the night !) http://www.ausbone.net <http://www.senet.com.au/~steve/pgp.html for Public Key>Received on Sun Mar 01 1998 - 20:47:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC