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: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:32:35 +1000
>>  1.    Do any of the current directors of ADNA plan to be involved with any
>>  entity, be it director, shareholder or some other connection (ie: inter
>>  company shareholdings etc) which shall bid for a role as a DNS registrar.
>Our company has no such plan at this time, it is not even on the drawing
>My motivation for joining the process was born from the frustration of
>waiting months on end for domain name rejections, for the want of a more
>professional system, to see a very diverse DNS system, not just the
>present 2LD's but others. This is what I want - I will work to that end on
>behalf of the SAIA. The opinions we have had raised in SAIA the last time
>it was spoken about was that any move to more open and fair competition
>and access to DNS services regardless of the 2LD is a good thing.

But your company SE Network Access Pty Ltd is a PISP with Melbourne IT and
does perform in the capacity as a Registry for it's (SE Net) clients?

>>  If so would it not be better to resign and cause no further conflic of
>>  interest debate.
>>  It is obvious that Peter Gerrand will remain as CEO of MiT and that they
>>  will remain as a DNS registrar so would Peter stand aside and let the
>>  vote on a replacement.
>The only way that ADNA can actually get any control over any name spaace
>policy in Australia is to get concencus and lots of it, we need concensus

This I can't disagree with.

>from two main areas and one other :
>o      The Internet community : business and user groups, educational,
>       government (gov users not regulatory);

I'ts not going to get much whilst the baord consists of ONLY ISP's and
Registries with a clear commercial profit interest.

>o      The present stake holders under .au : 
>        o  .au 
>        o
>        o
>        o,
>        o
>        o

Fair enough.

>        o  anybody else I forgot (mainstream heirachy - not unrecognised
>           offshoots)

Could you define "unrecognised offshots" so I know what you are talking about.

>[this is not a statement that says ADNA wants it all - this is not a
>statement that says ADNA plans to 'get control' of the above mentioned
>domains - this is merely a 2LD listing and other - nothing more - people
>or DNS groupings that make sense to have involved.]

But clearly if ADNA was made up form the right group and mix of people,
there woudl be very very little - if any - objection to ADNA being the
Administrative body for .AU.

Wouldn't that sound fair?

>o      The government appointed regulatory body if the ACA sees fit.

I think the ACCC would find themselves interested.

>>  This would solve some of the conflict of interest debate, Peter could
>>  be involved through consultantion etc.
>Peter/MIT are a voluntary part of the debate and the process, all stake
>holders are needed at the table - ADNA (nor any other body) can force
>anything at all (maybe the ACA if things fall to hell). It requires
>cooperation. I beleive it is better to get all stakeholders as it stands
>now to A table - somewhere.

But clearly not all the stakeholders are defined.  When you refer to DNS,
you must encompass ALL OF THE DNS in Australia, not the bits you feel like

It's clear I have a very strong committment to DNS in AUstralia and the
world over, it's also clear I have a strong infrastructure for DNS -
operational and growing.

It would be wise to include someone who has and currently is running TRUE
ROTO SERVERS, as certainly NONE of the above are, nor will.

>I beleive that the meetings should be more public and have stated so on
>this list. 

Yes, you have and we appreciate that.  I'd go one step further and say
TOTALLY public, not just "more" public.

>I look forward to seeing pressure brought to bear that list real changes
>that can be made. Do not expect people to help you to change something
>when they do not see it as broken (if at all) as perhaps you do. 

ADNA isn't "broken" it just has teething problems.  The problems have been
identified - at least the first few.  If ADNA and the Community can resolve
those issues quickly and fairly, then ADNA can move onto it's next round of

I assure you Stephen, your input so far has been great, but your only one
of 7 (?) other members.  When are they also going to speak forward?  Or are
you an Authoritive Spokes Person?

>We all really want answers, we all really a fairer DNS system in
>Australia, please help to reach our goal by suggestions.

Yep, totally agree.  But make the Community come first.  The rest falls
into place afterwards.

>If you believe we are all biased please do not expect us to step aside
>when there is none to replace us - please help us find answers - if we are
>biassed then find people to depose us - do not just tell us to go. 

Fair enough comment. Appreciate the sentiment, but note also we can't just
drop names around a public list.  People who we feel might be suitable need
to be contacted first.  I can't contact anyone because I haev no authority
to contact anyone on behalf of or in reference to ADNA. I would need some
kind of authority to contact suggested people and ask their permission to
be submitted.

>ADNA needs a more independant chairperson (the original name that was
>floated was a Roger [BD].... - cannot remember or find my original notes),
>this was identified at the first meeting - it would be a great start if an
>independant one of those could be found by the Adelaide meeting (if the
>meeting is in Adelaide, I have two responses from ADNA members who see no
>problem with this so I suppose that makes it three in favour).
>Does anybody have a name that we could float as a chairperson ?

Yes I do, but again do I have authority to go to the person and say:

Hi Potential Chairperson, I'd like to suggest your name to ADNA ... blah
blah blah ... who woudl like to see if you might make an approriate

I can't do that without authority from ADNA, I'm not going to put my name
on the line with people I respect on a whim that turns out to be a farce.

That's totally unprofessional and very unacceptable in the Community.

We've constructed a list of around 38 people to contact that might be
interested.  I'd estimate 5 will be keen to take an interest, 2 might be
after they attend a meeting to see if ADNA is professional enough or just a
..... whatever word you like, and the rest will probably decline, but you
don't know unless you ask.

Incidently I'm not one of them.  I stand by my earlier comments that unless
the Membership criteria changes, I would hold myself in a conflict of

      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 Mon Mar 02 1998 - 02:28:43 UTC

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