Kim,

You make reference below to CIRA's membership rules (CIRA has only 1 class 
of member as far as I know). I think it is important not to confuse 
MEMBERSHIP with the right to be elected a Director. Our proposed change does 
not prevent supply related people from becoming members but does prevent a 
supply related person from being elected as a Director in demand class. It 
is also important to note that to be elected a Director you do NOT have to 
be a member.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
Australia's Domain Name Administrator
ceo§auda.org.au
www.auda.org.au


Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential 
and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named 
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, 
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by 
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. 
Please consider the environment before printing this email.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+ceo=auda.org.au§dotau.org 
> [mailto:dns-bounces+ceo=auda.org.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of
> Kim Davies
> Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2007 04:46
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: [DNS] Restricting demand membership of auDA
>
> auDA has given notice of an Extraordinary Meeting on August 13 to
> consider constitutional amendments to forbid a "supply related person"
> from being elected a director of demand class; and preventing multiple
> divisions within the same corporate group from having multiple
> memberships.
>
> Presumably this is a measure to try and guard against the possibility
> of unfairly unbalancing auDA's board by stacking it full of supply-side
> representatives, however is the mechanism the right one? It seems to
> disenfranchise legitimate community members who may be indirectly
> connected with the domain name retailing business from participating as
> users.
>
> To take a personal example, when I started participating in auDA --
> which I did out of personal interest -- my employer at the time was
> an ISP where I worked in systems development. In this role I didn't
> touch domain retailing services (back then as a reseller of M-IT) for
> customers. Today under these rules presumably I would be banned from
> being on the auDA Board. Is that fair or appropriate?
>
> If you look at other kinds of organisations it is possible to serve in a
> personal capacity, as well as have an organisation participate also.
> Taking ISOC-AU as an example, I'd imagine a number of employees of their
> corporate members are members in their own right.
>
> Perhaps we need to reconsider different models of demand membership
> of auDA if the risk of capture is that great. I don't know what the
> current update of demand membership is like, but it might benefit from
> some elements of the new CIRA model (see
> http://www.cira.ca/en/membership/about.html) where any domain holder
> can have free annual enrollment as a member.
>
> kim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/