[DNS] RE: Who makes auDA policy?

[DNS] RE: Who makes auDA policy?

From: Chris Disspain <ceo§auda.org.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:24:31 +1100
Ian,

Thanks for the below. I am in LA at the moment at the ICANN meeting. I will
respond to your questions early next week.

Regards

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
ceo&#167;auda.org.au
+61-3-9349-4711
www.auda.org.au


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2001 05:57
To: DNS; Chris Disspain, CEO auDA
Subject: RE: Who makes auDA policy?

Chris

In my earlier email (copy below) I raised the question: What do we mean by
"policy" or "policy change" or "administrative change"?

The auDA Board minutes of 5 May 2001 -- Extraordinary Meeting that
considered the Final Report of the Name Policy Advisory Panel -- record (see
also Endnote):

"Board comment: The imposition of a renewal period is an administrative
change, not a policy change.  Therefore, the 'grandfathering' provision in
Recommendation 3.8 does not apply to this recommendation."

"Board comment: The introduction of a Dispute Resolution Procedure is an
administrative change, not a policy change. Therefore, the 'grandfathering'
provision in Recommendation 3.8 does not apply to this recommendation."

The Board has, in effect, decided (contrary to Panel Recommendations 3.8)
that the two Panel recommendations will be applied with retrospective
effect.  Panel Recommendation 3.8 states:

"Changes to domain name eligibility and allocation policies do not have
retrospective effect for current domain name licence holders.  The new
policy will only apply to existing domain name licences if the licence is
re-registered to a different entity, or when the existing licence holder's
licence expires."

It seems to me that to avoid 3.8, the Board has chosen to interpreted Panel
recommendations "as administrative changes, not policy changes".

Question: On what basis did the Board decide that each of the above Panel
recommendations *is an administrative change, not a policy change*?

Question:  Why was this issue -- that a Panel recommendation may be
interpreted as *an administrative change, not a policy change* -- not
brought to the attention of the Panel members.

Question:  Why was the Panel not given the opportunity to review its
recommendations (3.2, 3.3e and 3.8).

Question:  Were there any ambiguities or inconsistencies in the Panel's
recommendations?

Question:  If there were ambiguities or inconsistencies, how were they
addressed in auDA's implementation strategy.

Question:  Why was the Panel not given the opportunity to review any
ambiguities or inconsistencies in the its recommendations?

Regards, Ian


~~~~
Ian Johnston
Member of auDA
Candidate for the auDA Board
www.infobrokers.com.au/resume
Member, Name Policy Advisory Panel
Member, Competition Model Advisory Panel
mailto:ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au


ENDNOTE

The following extracts are from the auDA Board minutes of 5 May of the
Extraordinary Meeting which considered the Final Report of the Name Policy
Advisory Panel <http://www.auda.org.au/about/minutes/board-200105.html>:

1. Final Report of the Name Policy Advisory Panel

The Board noted advice from Maddock Lonie & Chisholm, that directors must
act in the best interests of auDA in deciding whether or not to accept the
Panel's recommendations.  The Board agreed that it cannot change the wording
of the report. Instead,  any ambiguities or inconsistencies in the Panel's
recommendations will be addressed in auDA's implementation strategy.


2. That the Board accepts Recommendation 3.2, that all domain name licences
are subject to a renewal period, to be specified by auDA, or by the relevant
2LD administrator subject to ratification by auDA.

Board comment: The imposition of a renewal period is an administrative
change, not a policy change. Therefore, the 'grandfathering' provision in
Recommendation 3.8 does not apply to this recommendation.


8. That the Board accepts Recommendation 3.3 e, that the domain name licence
applicant must agree to be bound by any Dispute Resolution Procedure
specified by auDA.

Board comment: The introduction of a Dispute Resolution Procedure is an
administrative change, not a policy change. Therefore, the 'grandfathering'
provision in Recommendation 3.8 does not apply to this recommendation.


13. That the Board accepts Recommendation 3.8, that changes to domain name
eligibility and allocation policies do not have retrospective effect for
current domain name licence holders.

Board comment: The intention of the recommendation is that the new policy
will only apply to existing domain name licences if the licence is
re-registered to a different entity, or when the existing licence holder's
licence is not renewed.  As noted above, this recommendation applies only to
policy changes, and does not apply to administrative changes such as the
imposition of a renewal period or
introduction of a Dispute Resolution Procedure.


--Original Message-----
From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:58 PM
To: DNS; Chris Disspain, CEO auDA
Subject: Who makes auDA policy?

Chris Disspain wrote Wednesday, November 14, 2001, to [DNS] and Jeremy
Malcolm:

> Jeremy

... snip ...

> I presume you understand how auDA works but it may
> help to be clear on the issue. auDA and its 'incumbent
> administration' does not create policy, it implements policy.
> The policy is created by public panels that sit over a long
> period of time and make a series of recommendations to
> the Board. The RFT is the result of the Competition Panels
> Report. This panel sat for nearly 12 months and took
> numerous public submissions on what should happen
> to the existing 2LDs. auDA is following its recommendations.
> In other words, Jeremy, it is not the Boards policy or the
> executives policy that is being implemented, it is the policy
> recommended by the Panel after a lengthy, open and public
> process, a process in which you could have been involved.

... snip ...

Chris

With some reservations, I agree with the above comments you have made about
auDA policy and policy making processes.  I intend to question and seek
clarification of them over the coming weeks.

In so doing , I will be seeking to be constructive, and to facilitate
ongoing debate on .au governance, policy, policy making processes and policy
issues.  I see scope for continuous improvement in these areas.  I say this
as someone who has participated in the Name Policy Advisory Panel,
Competition Policy Advisory Panel, LINK and DNS forums over many months, and
with a long background of participating in public policy making.

It is my hope that after a period, subscribers to this DNS forum and *I*
will have a better understanding of .au governance, policy, policy making
processes and policy issues.

I will put before this DNS forum, for consideration, clarification and
debate, a series of issues, including for example:

- Policies in Panel reports that have not been, or appear to have not been,
accepted by auDA.

- Policies in Panel reports that have been, or appear to have been, changed
by auDA.

My first posting will be this evening on the following:  What do we mean by
"policy" or "policy change" or "administrative change".  For example, from
the May 5 auDA Board minutes: "The introduction of a Dispute Resolution
Procedure is an administrative change, not a policy change."

Regards, Ian


~~~~~
Ian Johnston
Candidate for the auDA Board
www.infobrokers.com.au/resume
Member, Name Policy Advisory Panel
Member, Competition Model Advisory Panel


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 322 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
Received on Wed Nov 14 2001 - 23:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Nov 01 2014 - 00:00:10 UTC