Hi Kim,

I don't have an opinion on the discuss/not discuss view and the publication of 
an email, if Erhan is okay with it being discussed in public then that would 
be good enough for me.

I would make some comment on reduction on costs / opex however whether that 
spurs discussion or not. 

In my own personal view (and I'm speaking as an individual not in my capacity 
of working in a Registrar), I think the travel line in the auDA budgets is not 
only excessive it's obscene. 

auDA while I was on the board made a commitment that if auCD wasn't 
financially viable after the initial cash injection from the generic domain 
auctions, that the program would be rolled up. Well the money is exhausted and 
all that's happened is that auDA have absorbed the ongoing costs and it's 
business as usual. 

To an outside observer there seems to be no competive tender process to auDA 
for the provision of ongoing contract services, legals as one example. 

I certainly think that the board as part of their corporate governance should 
be looking at the entire opex budget for auDA regardless of whether this 
ultimately lowers domain pricing or not. 

Though on the issue of domain pricing it is my understanding that each 
registration now contributes 25c to the auDA foundation. Which I think in and 
of itself is scandalous. 

I would welcome some healthy community debate around these and any other 
items, whether you happen to agree with my particular point of view or not. 

Regards, 
Brett Fenton.




> Hi all,
> 
> I wrote:
> | |     1. The  _reduction  of  domain name prices_ ??? by reducing
> | |     auDA???s fee to
> | |     
> | |        Registrars;
> | 
> | What impact would this have on auDA's programmes, budget or expenditure?
> | Are there specific services auDA performs that should be reduced to
> | accommodate this? ...
> 
> I have received a number of responses to this email, all off list - not
> from the candidate but from other members. It is a shame there is no open
> discussion about these kind of issues, because I think it is useful to
> discuss the future of .au and how it can improve. That is why this list
> was created.
> 
> However, one person took exception and thinks that I shared privileged
> conversations that should be kept private. Their view is that candidates
> should not have to answer questions from members, and that the material
> they spam to members to ask them to elect them are confidential
> communications.
> 
> What kind of accountability is this? I am dumbfounded.
> 
> kim
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/