At 06:51 3/11/98 +1100, you wrote:
>12 is still a lot of folk Kate. The question in my mind as I read
>bot the NOIE paper and your document is "Does the involvement
>of more people lead to better outputs?" Sadly, the answer tends
>towards 'no'. More people on a body leads to fragmentation,
>varying degrees of involvement, greater overheads, slower
>decision making processes with more erratic outcomes (look
>at parliament if you want a substantive demonstration of
>what happens when you get over 100 in the group!)

I agree with Geoff here. I think we should be aiming for a board size of around 5.

Remember, we don't need representation at the board level for every interest group - individuals can honestly and fairly wear a number of hats (if they are the right individuals ;-) - LMB

>
>The quality option for many groupings is not how large they
>are, but the degree to which they consult and gather views,
>and then create outputs which posses both consistency and
>coherency.
>
>So, if we a start with 
>
>- a function: policy oversight, 
>
>- and a preferred size: 6, 
>
>- and a preferred mode of operation: reviewing the output of
>   various working groups (or 'councils' as the NOIE paper
>   put it - although I find the word 'council' way too
>   grandiose for the function personally) using the process
>   of open review by soliciting comment from interested
>   parties.

I agree. Mechanisms that have worked in the poast are to set up 'special interest' mailing lists with invitations to all interested parties to subscribe and take part.

After discussion on the mailing list, representatives of those that take part can compile a 'consensus document' that summarises the consensual opinion of those that took part in the discussion and present this document back to the full membership for ratification followed by endorsement by the board.

The board of course can send this back to the membership for consideration of comment or ammendment they may have, but if they do this too often, they run the risk of flying in the face of consensus and losing their mandate. - LMB

>
>then does that suggest a Board structure?
>
>I'd contend that it does, and tends to lean towards having
>the board positions filled with folk who are as Kate
>terms it 'consumer rights' and 'legal resolution'. The
>technical functions and agent transactions are in my view
>not necessarily policy level activities.

Board level representation needs to be primarily looking after the concerns of those most involved in *using* domain names. Consumer representation is a difficult one because there aren't any consumer bodies that could add a lot of knowledge or experience - domainnames are confusing to ISP's let alone consumers.

A board member who also understands intimately the technical aspects may assist in preventing dubious avenues of discussion at the board level.

I disagree that registration agents are not required because these are the people most in touch with what consumers want, as they deal with them on a day to day basis on these issues. 

I have been through this process with the formation of NOMINET in the UK. I'm sure that Dr Black's input into the process will provide a very useful perspective and I have to say that if .au were to adopt a similar system to that of NOMINET we are unlikely to go very wrong. The conditions and concerns are the same in the UK and Australia.- LMB


>
>Lets see it this applies to a modification of Kate's proposal:
>
>>Here's a suggested breakdown of the primary interests of the groupings
>>of the discussion document - but in reality each group would decide for
>>*itself* which sector was its primary focus.  Each sector could elect
>>say, 3 board members, for a board of 12 people.
>>
>                         (1)         (2)        (3)         (4)
>                      Technical     Agent      Legal      Consumer
>Domain name holders                                           x
>IIA (ISPs)                            *                                       
>ISOC-AU                                                       x
>ATUG                                                          x
>ACA                                                           x
>Tradegate                                        x
>
>
>Now the only one I see which you may wish to include is the IIA
>position, given that the agents themselves are consumers of the
>registrar function.
>
>A smaller body as as that above will probably dischange its
>functions efficiently and effectively. A lerger body will
>be underworked, and will either disintegrate or start
>aggregating other functions and become an unhealthy point
>of concentration of powers. Neither outcome is desireable
>in a well balanced environment.
>
>Geoff
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>155 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§waia.asn.au to be removed.
> 
_____________________________________________
Larry Bloch                   
Chief Executive Officer       
NetRegistry Pty Limited       
email:  larry§netregistry.au.com
Office: +61-(0)2-9699 6099
Fax:    +61-(0)2-9699 6088


http://www.netregistry.au.com
Domain House, PO Box 2088, Sydney, NSW 1043
_____________________________________________