Leni

Thanks for your post - its a keeper!

Warm regards
Gary

At 16:28 26/02/98 +1100, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>