Re: DNS: Most ADNA Members hold interests in Profit Based Companies.

Re: DNS: Most ADNA Members hold interests in Profit Based Companies.

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:39:14 +1000
This is a fairly LONG POST.  I tried to cut as much as possible, but some
context needs to remain.  HOpefully STephen Baxter and other ADNA members
will be able to disect - carefully to retain context - this post, remove
some of the replication and perhaps even break it into three or four
specific threads. Sorry for typos and Spelling errors, I still don't have a
spell checker for Eudora :)

>>  Can you tell me honestly you can perform in a capacity with only the
>>  interests of things outside of your commercial enterprise? 
>I joined the process because I thought (and still think) it was broken.

If called upon, does this mean you will resign from all
Director/Shareholder positions of those COmmercial organisation to sit on
the ADNA board for a period of time?

>>  If so, I'd truely like to see you sign an agreement as such and submit it
>>  to ADNA stating that your commercial enterprise(s) will not undertake any
>>  interest in the process unless you personally resign from the ADNA board.
>So my company cannot register domain names any longer !
>Yah sure - I will sign that .... not.

I think that answers the above question also.  So your saying that your
position on ADNA is to fix something, that you claim is broken, so your
company can profit from the results?

>>  It's too much a conflict of interest and 90% of the time people are on
>>  organisations to serve their interests and not those of the community.
>How and when ?

My paragrph above answers that.

>One example - Peter Gerrand has what alot of people call a monopoly on
>behalf of his company, yet he is being apart of process to remove that
>monopoly. Now does that sound self serving ?

It puts MIT in a position way in advance of any action to be able to take
necessary action to retain the highest possible status they can afford.

Just like Optus being introduced to Australia.  It made a big dent in the
Telstra/Telecom budgets of the 90's.  Staff became friendly and you always
had someone peronable on the phone willing to help and find a soltution.
Then around 1995 the apathy and lazyness crept back in to where it is
today.  Hard to get an answer on anything.  There are still some good
peopel in there, but they are the ones that admit they bach their heads far
too often.

>>  No, that's not what I said at all.  Stephen, you've been making personal
>>  attacks at me for over a year now, it woudl be nice if we could
>>  on issues, rather than personal attacks.  I's so unprofessional.
>Adam, what you are saying is that people involved in the DNS/Internet
>community should not be involved in its reform -

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  That's the conclusion you have come
to, but not what I've said.

>that to me is dillusional.

Stephen, to you, lots of things are dillusional, but they happen and
progress anyway.

>Solve this now by naming people who would survive the regime
>you apply to test people.

Gosh, now you've actual;ly asked the question I was expecting far earlier.

OK.  The problem is to drive a fair organisaiton the members must not have
any conflict of interest, otherwise it could be seen they are driving their
commercial interests to advantage.

The question is - how do you find people who understand and are capable of
developing such an organisaiton that do not have a commercial interest.
After all the goal of almost every Australian is to make a "sh** load of
money overnight" and fly to Spain.

>Lawyers are involved in law reform, accounts and lawyers in tax reform,

Yes this is true.  But reform in these areas, doesn't necesarily put more
money in the pockets of the Lawyers and Accountants.  It makes their life
easier to help save time and money fro their clients.

What ADNA is proposing - to date - is not unlike the IAHC - restrictive to
only those who drin kthe same beer or have a "sh** load of cash in a
barrow" waiting to be used to make more.

That's not very "Non Profit" or "Community" or "Netizen Concerned" if you
ask me. And probably not if you asked some of the highest most credabile
DNS people in the world. Whom have hopefully joined this list by now.

>IT people even make up policy advisory board for governments (it is shame

Yes, mainly because the IT person is paid to do a job, not profits from the
revenue the Government makes from the resource.  Governments aren't
permitted to PROFIT.  SO the "IT Professionals" do not get an ongoing
return for their work, they get paid their consultancy and find another job.

Are you going to be paid for your consultancy to ADNA and find another job?
 No, because as above you have clearly indicated your company WILL profit
and continue to sell Domain Names under the current or ADNA regime.  There
for your interest in ADNA will foremostly be to benefit your company and
it's profit abilities.

That makes your membership technically a breach of the ADNA MOA and I'm
sure the Corporations Law that governs that MOA.  STEPHEN BAXTER is a
all that counts in the grand scheme.

>that SCAG do not follow this model), would it do to have a janitor's
>committee or the local P&C help out here ?

Certainly not. But the question then falls to WHO is suitable to help
develop this organisation in a fashion that ensures the commercial
interests and the community interests are served equally.

Perhaps you need a few janitors on the board?  Remember there are highly
intelligent people out there who know nothing of Internet and DNS, but know
the community and what it will bear.  

I would no doubt feel far more confident in ADNA if it had people WHO were
not involved in Internet on the baord equal in number to those who are.

And ADNA should be open to EVERYONE at ANY LEVEL equally.  If it's a NON
PROFIT ORGANISATION and it's goal is to reform AU administration and
provide for the community, then WHERE THE HELL IS THE COMMUNITY

All I see are Associations made up of Profit oriented companies mostly
involved with Internet as their revenue source.

I don't see a representative of the Starlight Foundation on the board?  Nor
the Fred Hallows Foundation?

What about someone from the Westfield and Coles Myers companies?

How about some places for Ordinary Joe Blowes to be participants?

ADNA concerns ALL of Australia and EVERY AUSTRALIAN, it's as big as if not
as important as the Federal Government and I don't see ANYONE currently
involved who is suited to carry out and make such decisions on behalf of
the community.  I do see plenty of people capable of making decisions on
how best to profit and gain market share.

>>  I indicated that a person who had a commercial interest in the Internet
>>  woudl not make a good Board member ethically under the ADNA rules.  It
>>  forms a clear conflict of interest.
>Who involved in the industry would be qualified following that rule ?

NONE, probably.  But I've posed a possibel solution above. 

What point would ther be in having a board made of people who know nothing?
 You need a balance of Commercial and Community.  That's where Ethics come
into play and you need a totally UNBIASED chairman.  

The Chairman has to be someone who has no or minimal background in Internet
and has no Commercial interests whatso ever.  This is very important.

It creates the unbiased position.  You know - like an Independant?

>Please name a couple of people who have experience with the Internet
>Industry (a small prerequisite) that is not on the payroll of some company
>that may benefit from DNS reform and therefore do not count ?

Hang on a sec.  You already have all the Internet Commercial people on the
baord.  How about some that are not that look out for the community?

Your not thinking wide and clear. Your thinking Small and Profit.  That's
the problem with ADNA and that is the problem that casued the fall of the

ADNA needs to OPEN IT"S DOORS at all times to the public. So the public can
participate in the same way a Council operates.

It has to have a Question time where the Public can put forward it's
questiosn to the Board and have them answered in that session or the next one.

>If you have identified a flaw in ADNA please air a fix - name some people,

IF?   It's not an IF, it is a clealry identified concern.

>the ones involved now are the ones who want to be, who can we draft that
>would be able to help us out - please name them ?

I would participate in ADNA as a representative of AURSC and affiliated
organisations if there are and equal number of COMMUNITY leaders who are
not involved with Internet on the Board.

I'll have more respect for ADNA if I see community Leaders on the board.

It's not up to me to find and name suitable people.  It's up to ADNA's
founders who claim to be making a fair, unbiased and community minded
decison to find the right people to have on the board.

I'll be glad to do this for a fee, as that's what I do professionally.  But
again I would not be nominating myself under the current ADNA MOA and
rules. nor would I nominate myself whilst the Board consists only of
Internet affiliated Commercial organisations.

>Please identify people - put them up for scrutiny and then I can send
>a message to a public forum calling them biassed if need be as that seems
>like an easy thing to do.

I've give some possible suitable hints above.  It's up to ADNA to bring and
find the people.  Again, if ADNA wishes to pay me a consultancy fee, I'll
find people whom would certinly pass any community and commercial scruitiny.

[postscript - My wife suggested people like Gillan Polack should be
approached.  Gillian was the Vice PResident to the National Jewish Womens
something or other.  She has considerable reputation and community
credability. Just an example. And is an internet user.)

It would put me in a posision so comfortable I would NOT want to sit on the
baord at all.  And them most of the adversary to ADAN would vanish.

I'd even make a Board seat position available for the ACCC - unconditional.

Even reserve a seat for a Federal Liberal and Labour Party Member, no
actually forget I even said that.

>>  What's to say Your commercial company isn't going to next become a
>>  Registrar under the ADNA regime?  Or have you clearly indicated this will
>>  NOT occur?
>I do not wear an SE Net hat when I attend ADNA board meetings, as I don't

But you are legally bound to act at all times in the interest sof your
Company under the Corporations LAW.  If ADNA voted that SE should shut
down, would you do it?

>when I attend SAIA board meetings. If by my actions I am seen to be biased
>in any way then please identify the instance. I have done nothing wrong as

The only way you can assert that you are unbiased is to relinquish any
commercial interests you have.

I've done this before, when I was running for a seat in the State of NSW.
I resigned and sold my shares in my company.  I had to make sure I had NO
POSSIBLE conflict or other concern.

>is the case with the other people working to fix the DNS system in 
>Australia - we are just trying to fix not blow more holes in it !

You will low more holes in it, if ADNA is made of people with the
Corporations Law hanging over their heads.  Can ADNA decide to hand AU
Admin over to the ACCC and the State Business Registry Bodies?

One would have to think that woudl be the BEST possible solution of all times?

Neither have commercial interests and none are permitted to make a profit.

>>  As a board member of ADNA you are making decisions that affect commercial
>>  enterprise.  It's almost "insider trading" where behind those closed ADNA
>>  meeting doors you are privilidged to information I and other organisations
>>  are not.  By the time we hear about them from ADNA you've had a two week
>>  commercial head start.
>I will not take that as an accusation that I have done something wrong but
>that sounds like you have almost accused my of crime.

No, it's not an accusation.  It's a discussion statement.  Useful for
creating discussion to try and help ward off what might later be seen as
such, but right now is accepted as part of the state of affairs.

Affairs which we all wish to resolve and see happy.  But someone has to
start and ADNA has made a start, it now has to improve it's position.

>>  >If you are insinuating that we are doing something other than
>>  >those bodies than please just say it and we can really get down to
>>  >business.
>>  I haven't said that either.  I've simply said I see you as a member of a
>>  board making decision for a NON PROFIT organisation whislt holding a clear
>>  PROFIT motive as a Director (?) or employee of a company that has a clear
>>  motivation to dominate a market as a conflict of interest.
>Who would you have heading DNS reform - employees of the NON profit
>organisations ?

<rofl> Well said. Good question.  The answer is as abvious to you as me.  NO.

>This is an issue in your eyes - please tell me who you would have on the
>board then ?

As stated twice above.

>>  Can you ASSURE ME in writing that any decision made by ADNA will not in
>>  way relate to or advantage your company over any other company in
>>  Australia?
>Well if we have a more efficient DNS system with more competition then my
>company will most likely get more chance to sell more DNS related

So you wish to IMPROVE the DNS system by being involved with ADNA so your
company can make a profit from selling Domain Names?

>So my company, as will every other such similar company will benefit out
>of DNS reform.

Every Similar company permitted to make the decisions that form the policy
for selecting the companies that can sell Doamin Names.

OK, will my company be permitted to Sell Domain Names?  I do now.  If ADNA
changes the policy and it's members are permitted to and I can't meet the
criteria the commercial advantage has changed and that's not very good.

>All of my work with ADNA is on behalf of SAIA, SAIA has no official
>position on DNS reform except to get it done some time soon. I do not sit
>on ADNA as a company director. People can fullfill two roles.

Except that your company will eventually profit from selling Domain Names.
You've pretty much said that three times in this post.

Also you must under Corporations Law sit on ADNA as a respresentative of SE
because you must ensure that the interests of SE are put foremost.

You can not as a director of SE agree to a decision that will put SE in
jepoardy.  So you have a conflict.

If I was on the ADNA board and suggested that Domain Name registration were
handed over to the State Business Registration Authorities. You woudl not

Why not?

>>  I didn't make a comment about Tradegate, I have no knowledge of the person
>>  or the organisaiton.  At this time I don't feel it necessary to see if the
>>  "representative" has commercial interests in the Internet, as I've already
>>  pointed out just about every other member does.
>Adam - you pointed out every other member is a member of the Internet
>Community - you draw from that fact that this bad. 

No, I pointed out that EVERY OTHER MEMBER is operating a COMMERCIAL COMPANY
MAKING PROFIT form the Internet Community.

Yes I draw from THIS fact that the ADNA board is bad.  It can not server
the interests of the community if PROFIT comes first.

Will ADNA in the interests of the Community decide that Domain Names under
AU will be FREE?  If not, why not?

That would clearly be in the interests of the community.

And I can think of 200 ways in which it could be done, your company could
profit from it and ADNA could maintain control of the Name Space.

Not hard really.

>>  How can a board be made up of people who have a clear COMMERCIAL interest
>>  honestly call themselves UNBIASED and Fairly representing.
>Who in Australian will do  - provide an answer please ?

As above.

>Most people I know who make up the Internet Organisations happen to work
>for companies in the Industry - please find us someone better ?

I never said you had to replace the existing people.  I said they were not
a suitable group as they stand to make decisions for a Non Profit -

>Employees can be biased as well.

Unquestionable.  Forget the Employee's as such, they are employed to do
jobs, not run organisaitons.
>>  >Grow up !
>>  No, Stpehen you should start by being IMPERSONAL and concentrating on the
>>  issues.  I haven't made one personal attack on you at any time.  You
>>  constantly do.

Incidently, than you for being IMPERSONAL. It certainly goes a hell of a
lot further!

>>  Yet again, I reitterate:
>>  How can the Board Members of ADNA conform to the terms of the MOA when
>>  are personally directly involved with Profit Making Companies directlry
>>  involved with Internet?
>Gets back to the basic question of :
>If the present board members are mostly all biased in your eyes can you
>please nominate a select group who may not be (names) ?
>Give us a solution - stones are easy to throw.

I hope I've provided some ideas.  If ADNA would like more, then ADNA shodul
decide to approach me, in a commercial manner, to which there are then no
questions as to what I might feed the Board with.

>>  If the members were "employees" of the organisations you quote who are not
>>  Directors of, or shareholders of any Internet Commercial Business, i
>>  woduln't have an arguement.  Would I?
>OK. SAIA has no employees yet, nor does WAIA (I think they have a NAP
>contractor), IIA has Peter Coroneos, has no employees, MelbourneIT
>could send a lower level manager than Peter.

Yes, but I think we have covered this as not really being an acceptable
solution either, thus other options have been posed.

>Now these people will just be taking direction from their boss/board -
>just like the present board members do.

Yes, exactly.  So scrub that one.

>These people still have a requirement to pick up a pay cheque at the end
>of the week and if you imply that the bosses are no good but the diggers

Nope, your statement here is good.

>are then you are still dillusional. If we are all corrupt (or open to

Now now, no name calling. You are not a psychiatrist, nor are you wualified
to make such a statement.

>corruption) then why would people we pay/direct be any different.....


>The people who sit on the ADNA wear two hats, this was discussed at length
>during the DNS forums (a series of meeting held over at least 12 months)
>and most people, while they agreed it was imperfect, saw that if a clear
>commercial conflict raised its head that could be dealt with after that
>was identified.

It's been identified.  It now needs to be SOLVED before ADNA proceeds.
THis is a claim BEFORE the fact, not AFTER the fact, and if it delays ADNA
for 6 months, then so be it.  It woud lbe far better this than all the
"Directors" of ADNA be called to the ASC for investigation and charges.  

Don't you agree?

>A better way to help out would be to join on of the non profit
>organisations (or form your own) that are part of ADNA and then exercise
>your control as a member of the process.

But I can't.  I can't join or create a Non Profit organisation and meet the
requirements of the ADNA MOA.  It's completely impossible.

I am a member of a non profit organisaiton - AURSC - but I'm also a
shareholder in a Regisrty and a Directory of a Marketing company.

I stand to make profit from both and both are involved in selling and
providing Domain Names.

So ethically I can not join ADNA under it's current MOA.

Change that, and I can join and feel I'm doing the right thing in the eyes
of both the law and the community.

I'm frequenty underestimated by you and your mates Stephen.  Money doesn't
interest me.  Some of your fellow "friends" should have learnt that some
years back.  One day, I won't be underestimated, and everyone will gain
from the experience.  Until then, I'm here - I'll oppose very publicly what
I feel is opposable and hopefully others will see what I say and understand
my logic and agree.  That will form stronger opposition and eventually we
all end up back at square one.

It would be nice to start at square one and go forward - carefully and
fairly for a change. Withouth the "dillusional" attacks and statements.

Lets concentrate on the issue and how to solve it, not calling names when
you can't think of a solution.

I've answered all your questions above, I hope you will take this to the
ADNA board and put forward very serious considerations.

Again, I'd be happy to join ADNA and the board if the conditions are fair,
right now, I'd be seen as in a total conflict of interest and I'm not
prepared to put myself in such a position to be questioned.  THat's just a
way of creating a diversion from the real facts.

ADNA and yourself created the ability for me to question ADNA ethics and
interests and those of it's members and Directors.  I'm doing so, because I
know it's a strong and powerful method.  If these issues aren't answered
there are ways of making them accountable.

I'd like to see ADNA achive it's generic goal, because I feel it's
necessaru too.  But I'd like to see it done in a manner that works for the
majority, not the minority and as the Internet Commercial Staekholders form
a very minute Minority of the Australian Population, you need to fill the
gap with the majority.

I know I speak and stand not alone.

      The world operates 24 hours a day ... so do the servers.
The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convery Member
Adam Todd                                 Personal  
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network
AU Root Server Confederation    
AU Internet News  mailto:internet-request&#167;  with "subscribe"
Received on Sun Mar 01 1998 - 16:02:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC