Hi,

I just got back from an extended trip to fully read the tidal wave of
emails sent over the past week or so, and though I would throw in my 2c
to comment on the general issues raised...

As most here know, in terms of etiquette, going off all guns blazing
the moment you subscribe to the list without taking the time to
get accustomed to the list or its previous history is generally
inconsiderate and doesn't bode well for getting people to listen to your
points. That is a shame because I think there are some genuine issues
buried in that avalanche that would be worthy of discussion.

In terms of auDA being a closed club that needs to be broken open by
lobby groups etc. I think people who suggest such ideas really have no
idea how auDA works. No-one that I know of has any powerful self
interest and the people involved have a genuine desire to make .au work
as best it can. Anyone who has good ideas should suggest them, and I am
sure they will be considered and the input welcomed. Also realise though
that auDA has an 8+ year history that has arrived at where we are now, so
it is simplistic to think one approach would be a magic pill that hadn't
been considered before.

In terms of the policies of auDA etc., I certainly don't agree with all
of them. However, I do believe that there has been due process arriving
at them and that the major policies were arrived at by policy panels
that had a broad membership and allowed for a wide variety of community
comment.

On the more specific point that auDA should open up various elements
of its operation to recurring tender processes and complete public
transparency. In theory that sounds good, but in practice it buries
auDA in piles of process at the expense of keeping things running
efficiently. The reality is whilst auDA's role is important, it only has
a staff of 3 - not exactly a huge organisation.

Besides, there is also the board for that. The board is publically
elected from a wide cross section of the community to take care of this
kind of stuff from auDA. It strikes a balance that hopefully means that
auDA can be open, but at the same time get its job done effectively
without having to consult everyone on each little thing, by distilling
the views of different constituencies.

Sorry for those that have heard me make these points before...

kim
--
http://www.kjd.info