Re: DNS: ADNA's first decisions - Minuted

Re: DNS: ADNA's first decisions - Minuted

From: David Keegel <djk§>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 01:46:22 +1000 (EST)
] At 11:38 29/6/97, David Keegel wrote:
] >
] >I would tend to agree with Simon -- let's just start with
] >
] >But I would also suggest that in fairness to the DNA of, we
] >look a little beyond the short term and start to pencil in some sort
] >of "in principle" suggestion that, once has been `fixed' and
] >it has been demonstrated that the solution is working (initially),
] >we then also turn to and decide whether that is a commercial
] >domain (which I think it is mostly now) and if so negotiate with
] >stakeholders (especially the owner and the operator of to
] >seek to implement the solution (or a variant of it) in also.

] >As people have been pointing out "rough consensus and running code"
] >is a cornerstone for change in many Internet processes such IETF.
] >I think it would be quite reasonable for the owner of to want
] >to see both before agreeing to actual (as opposed to "in principle")
] >changes in
] >
] >In this case "running code" translates to seeing processes that work.
] >
] >And I think we will find if ADNA sets out a timetable something like
] >        phase 1:  fix problem
] >        phase 2:  generalise to other commercial au domains.
] >        phase 3:  new *.au domains, overall au, legal stuff, etc
] >        phase 4:  all things to all australians (ie: ADNA's Objects)
] >then we will see a "rough consensus" emerge from that.
] >
] >I'm looking at phase 1 and 2 being fairly short term, perhaps (at a
] >wild guess) three months and six months from now respectively.
] Sigh...  When will it sink in?  It seems as though every time we get agreement
] that ADNA should initially concentrate on (which *everyone* agrees
] needs work), and demonstrate that it can do the job, someone pipes up and
] says "and let's put all the other Australian domains into the timetable.  This
] is the source of disagreement!

I'm suggesting that ADNA put on the front burner, on the
middle burner and everything else in *.au on the back burner.  Of course
I have *no* power to speak for ADNA -- I'm not a member or even a member
of a member of ADNA.  (But I am a member of ISOC-AU, and proud of it.)
Specifically, I would suggest that ADNA not discuss any details regarding until there is a clear consensus on ADNA's proposed solution for (which I expect would be months away).

My reason for putting somewhere other than the "let's not worry
about that yet" back burner, is that Melbourne IT probably views
as a competitor to  As such, M.IT may think it is unfair for
them to voluntarily submit to something, without any idea of whether
their main `competitor' is also prepared to submit to it, *ever*.

My reason for not putting on the front burner is that I can't
see the owner or operator of writing a blank cheque to ADNA
to implement something which is currently unknown and will be
untested at the time when it is to be implemented.  Especially if
they have no direct input into the process.

It makes much more sense for to "wait and see" how things go
with before making a commitment to the process.  My wild guess
was to allow three months after has been "fixed" for this
monitoring, (and if the outcome is seen as positive) then negotiation
between ADNA, Hugh Irvine and, (and if relevant stake-
holders are in agreement) then for implementation.

] ADNA cannot simply 'take' these domains - it must be done with
] the cooperation and involvement of the current administrators.

Absolutely.  (Regardless of what ADNA's Objects might say.)-:
ADNA should not take this cooperation for granted, and should not
assume silence means consent.
] Set modest goals, achieve them and the rest will follow.

David Keegel <djk&#167;>  +61 3 9642-5997
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
Received on Mon Jun 30 1997 - 02:16:00 UTC

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