Re: [DNS] NOIE concerns/agenda

Re: [DNS] NOIE concerns/agenda

From: Kate Lance <clance§>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:56:13 +1000
On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 03:09:49PM +1000, Larry Bloch wrote:
> Can we add:
> 9. Naming Policies

The original list is a set of pre-requirements for creating a body for .au
governance.  Actual naming policies are what that body has to produce
and is covered by item 4: 
4. Processes for the development of policy, standards, codes, etc should
   be inclusive, transparent and accountable; 

Rather than try to nut out here and now what policies are and are not
acceptable in a range of domains for a range of interest groups, we
have to set up a *system* for defining those policies - we don't have to
actually do the definitions!  (And if we try to, we'll just end up going
round and round in the circles we're all so familiar with ;-)

If the processes are set up properly then naming policies will be
established by the specific interest groups for those policies, not by us,
and *not* by the board.  Here's how it could be done - like the ACIF model:

* The Board has NOTHING to do with setting standards/naming policies, etc.

* The Board set priorities only, then passes them to a Reference Committee.

* A Reference Committee is set up for a specific task, and must be drawn
  from the members with a clear balance between supply/demand side.

* The Ref. Committee then establishes a Working Party, which can draw upon
  external expertise.

* The Working Party does drafts/gets public comment/iterates until
  consensus is reached.

* If the Ref. Committee is satisfied that consensus is reached, the report
  goes to the Board.

* The report can *only* be knocked back by the Board if:
  o the process hasn't been followed
  o consultation hasn't happened
  o the recommendation is illegal :-)

The Board is completely separated from policy generation, which is the
responsibility of the *members*, following standardised operational

A procedure like this is transparent, is accountable and is inclusive.

If something like this is set up then sane decisions will flow from it
- our problem in all of this debate has been confusion between the
outcomes and the mechanisms to derive those outcomes.  We only have to
build the mechanisms.

Received on Thu Jun 25 1998 - 13:56:16 UTC

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