[DNS] NOIE concerns/agenda

[DNS] NOIE concerns/agenda

From: Kate Lance <clance§connect.com.au>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:28:52 +1000
On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 08:49:06AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> Did I say NOIE were driving it? I think not. But I do want to know when
> the next meeting is scheduled, and what the agenda is. Right now, ADNA
> is a dead process, and irrelevant from what I can see.
> If there isn't an agenda, then I strongly suggest *WE* should make it. Now.

The areas of concern that NOIE think we have to sort out before we're
going to get community/industry consensus on .au governance are:

1. Stake holders -consensus should be broadly based and inclusive not
   only of key individuals but also of interest groups from both the supply
   and demand sides of the industry;
2. Objectives - should be clearly defined and achievable;
3. Principles - should be identified and include the promotion of
   competition, fair trading and consumer protection;
4. Processes for the development of policy, standards, codes, etc should
   be inclusive, transparent and accountable; 
5. Complaints and dispute resolution mechanisms - consideration needs to
   be given to the requirement to establish an administrative disputes
   resolution process;
6. Compliance and enforcement mechanisms - Consideration should be given
   to the mechanisms and powers required to achieve an effective self
   regulatory regime;
7. Funding and resources - resource requirements and funding options need
   to be identified and a self sustaining funding model put in place;
8. Legislative framework - an assessment needs to be made of the
   requirement for a legislative structure to support an effective self
   regulatory regime.

If we can't figure out how to deal with *all* of these, not just the
few that we usually focus on, then we won't get anywhere.  For
instance, it's clear that one of ADNA's major problems has been 4 -
(lack of) inclusive, transparent and accountable processes... yet other
than complain about their behaviour we haven't suggested mechanisms
that would lead to better processes (and from what I wrote yesterday,
the Nominet setup seems to be attracting similar criticism).

Number 7, Funding, is also a very difficult one - it might be fine when
it's all up and running but it's going to need substantial seed money
and there's almost zero probability of getting it from the government
-- it *has* to come from "the industry"...

Received on Thu Jun 25 1998 - 08:29:01 UTC

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