[DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8

[DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8

From: David Lye <davidlye§privatefleet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:58:35 +1100
Sorry still can't quite agree...

Currently on the names panel, we're currently reviewing the Monetisation
and Misspelling policies, right?  

One of the issues is whether auDA can accurately decide what makes a
'Brand Name' in terms of the policy.  And second to that whether that
brand is being infringed upon.

These are noble policies  and if auDA can get it right, no one would
disagree they have merit.  Let's just say we decide the the only way to
do this would be to employ a crack legal team to minutely examine every
complaint.  Do we raise reg fees to cover the extra $2m p.a. we need to
support this team? 

I don't mean to labour the point but I just can't see how we can
completely divorce costs and policy enforcement.  Or how we can divorce
policy setting from policy enforcement.

However I suspect I'm missing something so I'll shut up now :)

Have a great weekend everyone and, as Amin said, good luck with the
election!

David

-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
dns-request&#167;dotau.org
Sent: Friday, 15 October 2010 1:21 PM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8

Send DNS mailing list submissions to
	dns&#167;dotau.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	dns-request&#167;dotau.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	dns-owner&#167;dotau.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DNS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7 (David Lye)
   2. Re: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7 (Amin Kroll)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:10:24 +1100
From: "David Lye" <davidlye&#167;privatefleet.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7
Message-ID:
	
<8E9498074AA2414D9CE46A07BB10E6FF0502BB7B&#167;SERVER.privatefleet.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

In an idealistic world, maybe.  
 
However in reality, money is usually the primary driver for
organisations to improve efficiencies and reduce wastage.  If you don't
consider the bottom line, it's too easy to just paper over these cracks
by employing more resources which obviously isn't the best outcome.
 
Cheers
 
David
 
________________________________

From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org on behalf of
dns-request&#167;dotau.org
Sent: Fri 15/10/2010 6:00 AM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7



Send DNS mailing list submissions to
        dns&#167;dotau.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        dns-request&#167;dotau.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        dns-owner&#167;dotau.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DNS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 (Adrian Kinderis)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:07:13 +1100
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian&#167;ausregistry.com.au>
To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
Message-ID:
 
<8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3F5A24A144&#167;off-win2003-01.ausregistrygr
oup.local>
       
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Policies that don't work or are inconsistently applied should always be
reviewed when appropriate.

Reviewing them because of cost savings isn't a smart idea...

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian&#167;ausregistry.com.au
Web: www.ausregistry.com.au 



The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.


-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
David Lye
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:21 PM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

Think of the savings that would be made by not trying to enforce so many
subjective policies.

There are so many areas that are not clearly defined in some of these
polices (eg misspelling, monetisation to name a couple).  Grey areas
just means one party is going to always feel disgruntled and often means
the dispute is protracted.  You also get the case where people argue
relatively trivial matters as a matter of principle which is a real
time-waster

Cheers

David Lye



 Trivial complaint can risk causing a protracted dispute where yo
-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
dns-request&#167;dotau.org
Sent: Thursday, 14 October 2010 6:00 AM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

Send DNS mailing list submissions to
        dns&#167;dotau.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        dns-request&#167;dotau.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        dns-owner&#167;dotau.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DNS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Kim Davies)
   2. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Brett Fenton)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:21:54 -0700
From: Kim Davies <kim&#167;cynosure.com.au>
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election
Message-ID: <20101013022154.GA2543&#167;cynosure.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:56:27 +1100
From: Brett Fenton <brett.fenton&#167;netregistry.com.au>
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election
Message-ID: <201010131456.27706.brett.fenton&#167;netregistry.com.au>
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="us-ascii"

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/


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DNS mailing list
DNS&#167;dotau.org
http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns


End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
**********************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DNS mailing list
DNS&#167;dotau.org
http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns


End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7
**********************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20101015/1
6336020/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:49 +1100
From: "Amin Kroll" <amin.kroll&#167;intaserve.com>
To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7
Message-ID: <00c201cb6c08$0aa477c0$1fed6740$&#167;kroll§intaserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The enforcement of Policy should not be profit or costs driven. 

 

Yes costs and resources are considered in the overall scheme, when
setting budgets etc, but auDA has a responsibility to the broad au
Internet community to provide a solid regulatory framework. There's a
balance involved. Actually if you drill deeper and speak to the staff
that take the calls, filter and enforce the policy I reckon they'd argue
that the policy enforcing staff at auDA are close to under resourced!

 

Its often easy to view auDA through the frame of a profit making
organisation and draw conclusions based on that. I know - I've done so
aswell. But the role of auDA as Policy Authority and Regulatory Provider
is on a non profit basis.

 

I guess a rough parallel for policy resolution may be the Banking
Industry Ombudsman. If you want to make a complaint about the banks you
don't expect any policy that they enforce to be based on the cost of
enforcing that policy. You just want to make sure it is the right policy
to protect the consumer or business irrespective of enforcement costs.

 

In regards to updating policy that doesn't work - that's a separate
issue and needs review. As is being done right now via the Review Panel.

 

In regards to Bretts comments on Opex - from my experience the budget
items are reviewed, and discussed before reaching majority approval from
the Board. Ok - sure agreed there's always room for tweaking here and
there as in any organisation.

 

The auCD roll up was definitely discussed in depth! and in the end auDA
feels it gained experienced and valuable staff that have already
improved communication and transparency levels (newly released
activities such as blog, newsletters, registrar visits and Australian
Best Practice Awards etc). Improved communications and openness is
certainly an issue that people have spoken to me about, and personally
I'm happy to see the increased activity, and there's more coming.

 

 

Anyway - good luck with the elections everyone I see some strong
contenders ...

 

 

With Regards,

 

 

Amin Kroll

Managing Director

_________________________________________________________

Hostway Corporation | IntaServe

W: http://www.hostway.com.au

W: http://www.intaserve.com

E:  amin&#167;hostway.com.au

 

T: 1800 800 071 

T: + 61.2 8262 6666

F: + 61.2 8262 6699

 

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
information that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If
you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received
this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with
authority, states them to be the views of either Hostway Corporation Pty
Ltd or IntaServe Pty Ltd.

 

From: dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
David Lye
Sent: Friday, 15 October 2010 7:10 AM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7

 

In an idealistic world, maybe.  

 

However in reality, money is usually the primary driver for
organisations to improve efficiencies and reduce wastage.  If you don't
consider the bottom line, it's too easy to just paper over these cracks
by employing more resources which obviously isn't the best outcome.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

  _____  

From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org on behalf of
dns-request&#167;dotau.org
Sent: Fri 15/10/2010 6:00 AM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7

Send DNS mailing list submissions to
        dns&#167;dotau.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        dns-request&#167;dotau.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        dns-owner&#167;dotau.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DNS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 (Adrian Kinderis)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:07:13 +1100
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian&#167;ausregistry.com.au>
To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
Message-ID:
 
<8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3F5A24A144&#167;off-win2003-01.ausregistrygr
oup.
local>
       
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Policies that don't work or are inconsistently applied should always be
reviewed when appropriate.

Reviewing them because of cost savings isn't a smart idea...

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian&#167;ausregistry.com.au
Web: www.ausregistry.com.au 



The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.


-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
David Lye
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:21 PM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

Think of the savings that would be made by not trying to enforce so many
subjective policies.

There are so many areas that are not clearly defined in some of these
polices (eg misspelling, monetisation to name a couple).  Grey areas
just means one party is going to always feel disgruntled and often means
the dispute is protracted.  You also get the case where people argue
relatively trivial matters as a matter of principle which is a real
time-waster

Cheers

David Lye



 Trivial complaint can risk causing a protracted dispute where yo
-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of
dns-request&#167;dotau.org
Sent: Thursday, 14 October 2010 6:00 AM
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

Send DNS mailing list submissions to
        dns&#167;dotau.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        dns-request&#167;dotau.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        dns-owner&#167;dotau.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DNS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Kim Davies)
   2. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Brett Fenton)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:21:54 -0700
From: Kim Davies <kim&#167;cynosure.com.au>
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election
Message-ID: <20101013022154.GA2543&#167;cynosure.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:56:27 +1100
From: Brett Fenton <brett.fenton&#167;netregistry.com.au>
To: dns&#167;dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election
Message-ID: <201010131456.27706.brett.fenton&#167;netregistry.com.au>
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="us-ascii"

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/


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DNS mailing list
DNS&#167;dotau.org
http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns


End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
**********************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DNS mailing list
DNS&#167;dotau.org
http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns


End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7
**********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20101015/2
56a4dd9/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DNS mailing list
DNS&#167;dotau.org
http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns


End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8
**********************************
Received on Thu Oct 14 2010 - 22:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:10 UTC