Re: DNS: April 4th ADNA meeting

Re: DNS: April 4th ADNA meeting

From: Michael O'Reilly <michael§>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:06:28 +0800
I guess this is probably worth pointing out explicity.

The higher the membership fee, the higher the self interested required
for party X to consider joining. Obviously, they're going to need a
level of benifit roughly equivilant to the fee.

Taking the reverse, this obviously implies that to get the broadest
representation, you should see the fee as low as possible.

Given that it appears that you want to the broadest represenatation,
you set your fees to zero.

Now against this, you obviously want to raise enough money to run the
Org. Given that you're not running it for a profit, the obvious level
to see the fees at is
	F = Ct / E(members(F))
(fees == total cost divided by the expected number of members if the
average fee per member were F).

Given that the only real variables in there are Ct, and F, and F is
dependant on Ct, you need to work out the expected cost of running the

Find that, and you just about done.

As a quick stab as possible costs.

1. secratarial services. say a 1/4 time position, $7500/annum.

2. legal fund. I propose that you bar the DA's from suing the ADNA as
part of there contract, and require all dispute resolution to
procedure by arbitration. 

Then prohibit the ADNA for interacting with anyone but the DA's.

Then require that if the ADNA is joined as a co-defendant when someone
else sues a DA, that DA bear the costs.

Hopefully, the upshot of all this is that the ADNA should never end up
bearing any legal costs.

3. a twice yearly meeting. Funded by attendee's I think.

Anything else? so far I get $7500/annum as costs. :)


In message <199703270730.PAA11404&#167;>, Michael Malone writes:
> > I am interested in who these are perceived to be at this stage. If it
> > was the regional IA bodies, this would mean vesting the top-level domain
> > space of australia in a body dominated by ISPs or bodies themselves dominat
> ed
> > by ISPs and this is highly inappropriate. (If I mis-characterize the region
> al
> > IA bodies, please forgive me. This is my understanding at this time and I
> > welcome being set straight on that)

[ .. ]
> As for your other points though, I agree 100%.  It is important
> that the ADNA have representatives of all interested parties, and
> the joining fee should be set to a level that allows this.
> MM
Received on Thu Mar 27 1997 - 20:45:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC