>So, for example, Melbourne IT's public committment has been that
>they will support a system that enables other Registrars to
>register domain names in .com.au, if Melbourne IT is allowed
>to register domain names in other SLDs.
>
>And that's a perfectly reasonable attitude too.  Expecting one
>Registrar to give up its monopoly while others happily retain
>theirs is inequitable.

I'm certainly happy with these conditions.  When do we start?

>Adam, do you mean by clause 1. that if AHNET becomes a Registrar
>for Australian SLDS you will make your Shared Registry Software
>available free of charge for other Registrars to use?

Yes, perfectly.  There are two versions.  The URL Link verision where AHNET
does ALL The maintenance work, the REGISTRAR only has to supply logos and
colours.  And the Remote Site version, where the Registrar has access to
the User Interface functions and transmission code allowing the site to
eiether bulk transact or real time transact.

Either way the names themselves are locked at the time of application.

>As you have no doubt realised from the draft Registrar
>Licence Conditions document, the ADNA proposal is that
>any and all organisations that meets the few
>requirements listed can become a Registrar.

AHNET meets the requirements of the Green Paper, considering we had a lot
of input into it anyway.  I'm sure if the ADNA requirements are similar or
better we will meet those too.

Although it's possible AHNET wan't be the entity running the Regisrar
process :)

I'm yet to comment on the policy documents and at this time our response
will be submitted by early next week.

If you've made a revision, you'll have to take into consideration our
comments.

>The ADNA proposal has objective criteria and no limits
>on numbers of Registrars.

This is a GOOD thing.  As the Owner of .AUS I have no limites on the number
of registrars either.  Anyone can apply to DOT AUS Pty Limited to become a
Registrar.


>>I haven't seen anything about this "version" being tested?
>>Who is writing it? What are the specifications? What
>>about Security and Privacy?
>
>Regardless of whether the software I referred to,
>or the AHNET software, or any other SRS software was
>used as the end solution, all that would be public,
>and the solution would be a public asset.  I am trying

Maybe.  I guess that's possible.  Clearly for the "asset" to become public
the public in some way must contribute tho the salaries of the people who
develope the application.

I'm more than happy to "sell" my code to public trust.  ADNA isn't at this
stage an organisation I'd call a public trust, nor do I believe the publis
trust ADNA.

I feel however the cost to purchase the intellectual property of the
software might far exceed that of the benefit of the public purchasing such
code.  Thus the licence agreement options.  I'm open to more suggestions of
course.  I never close any doors.

>to co-ordinate User Requirement specifications, but have
>a reluctance to publicise the document in its current raw
>state.

This tends to make me believe no such document or software exists.  I'd be
happy to offer "some" time to the development of such a resource, althuogh
as I've already stated I have a commercial interest in a resource that exists.

>>>http://www.adna.asn.au/Documents/RegistrarLicences.html
>>We will be issuing a resonse shortly, I assume there is no deadline as one
>>has not been annouced?
>You assume correctly.

to which ...

>>You can't revise a draft without accepting all relevant comments prior to
>>revision.  This is not a fair and open process.

>Well, yes I can.  But there is no end deadline for the process at this
>stage.  I believe that it's probably more practical to make iterative
>revisions and then when the flow of suggestions dries up, to set an
>end date.  While I'd like to have competition today, I'd like to ensure
>the documents are right, too.  The only problem with making iterative
>revisions is if comment one says:

If you wish to ensure the documents are right, you have to allow everyone
fair time and equal opportunity to submit comments.

If you don't the process is biased and closed. The ACCC for one won't
tolerate this kind of thing and in all honesty it will bring to light legal
challenge against ADNA.  

How about putting a deadline for comment on the documents and trying to get
people to participate instead of waving in the wind.  Which is something
ADNA seems very good at doing.

As you can see, I'm offering the critique, but also offering constructive
comment as to how to improve or better the situation.  I can't do more than
that as I'm not an ADNA member, but I will if required take a legal action
against ADNA in the interest sof the community.

So lets go back to "Community" and work together and get something in place
that I for one am more likely to want to support.  I don't have to agree
with everything, but I have to believe there is a fair process and right
now, I don't have any faith or beliefe in ADNA at all.

We have already shown that Board Members with COnflicts of Interest can be
highly damaging.  Lets clean it up now, and see if we can do soemthing
positive, otherwise toss ADNA and lets get on with life.

>Change point six from A to B
>
>and I change it, and then a later comment says:
>
>Change point six back from B to A

Yes and you'll keep doing that forever. It's clear you either have no idea
how to manage a project, or a submission process or a tender.

Perhaps you need to start with the basisc of how a process like this works.

>If that happens then we're going to have to try and guage the general
>support for each option.  It's all going to be public on this list
>server.

No, you don't.  you ask everyone to submit by a certain date.  Also ask
everyone to ask ANYONE to take interest, otherwsie someone who wasn't
notified by an approriate mathod will complain and the whole process will
break down.

ADNA has already caused bad credability by having one member invite me to a
meeting and another two weeks later uninvite me to the same meeting, then
for yet another member two months AFTER the meeting to REINVITE me to the
past meeting.

This isn't PROFESSIONAL.

>>Can you PLEASE put a DEADLINE for submissions date on comments for drafst
>>that allows a reasonable time for comments.
>
>Not at this stage.  I don't think development of either of the two
>existing documents is actually going to be the hold-up in any process
>to enable competition.  At this stage, I don't see the time factor
>as critical.

Then put a deadline on submissions so you can show the intereted parties
YOUR SERIOUS and not just playing a game of "I'm going to learn something
new today."

It's doing your credability ZERO.

>>Here we go again.  No closing date, but lets update it anyway.
>>I hope you don't run tenders this way?
>
>Actually, the iterative process of the document development
>more closely matches the development of public software
>such as linux.  That sort of process can be very effective.

CAN BE.  Linux is FREE, there is no cost.

DOMAIN NAMES and the Market process is protected by the Trade Practices Act
and ADNA could fall in breach of it, if not careful.

Trade Prac doesn't cover the development of Linux.

So it doesn't gel.  You need to speak carefully with your legal advisor,
isn't it Phil?  

>Adam, thank you.  The actual costs involved are not great,
>but some are unavoidable, and for some its a tradeoff
>between volunteer input (which tends to slow the
>process due to individuals lack of time) and paying
>someone to do the job.

Fine then pay someone, or contract the role to someone who wants to make a
living out of it.  ADNA doesn't have to send a cent on it, if it can find a
company (such as AHNET) that is willing to share the resource.

>About $20,000 for a part time co-ordinator to do
>administrative work, improve the communication,
>and co-ordinate document development, improvements
>to M and A, plus some legal fees from that,
>would help greatly.  Please confirm that you can
>supply this, or part of it, and I'll provide you
>with ADNA's bank BSB number and you can do a direct
>deposit.

No, we won't be paying ANY monies to ADNA at this time.

We don't believe in it's charter, or that it stands by it's charter -
especially after the first resignation of one Board Member (who's next?).

However ADNA can send me a letter of comittment and authority and I'll
gladdly provide the resources necessary towards it's progress.

>BTW, I have collated all the feedback received so
>far on the .pr.au document, prepared it all for
>a posting to the list server, revised the source
>document and am currently creating an html version
>for the web site.  Hopefully that will all
>be posted shortly.

Well I'd suggest you wait till next Tuesday when we put our submission
forward. It might help a little.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convery Member			  AURSC    http://www.aursc.ah.net
Adam Todd                                 Personal http://adamtodd.ah.net  
at§aus  or  at@ah.net				   http://adam.says.sheesh
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network  http://www.ah.net
AU Internet News  		http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/INTERNET/
AU Internet User Mail List	http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/OZ-USER/