Thank you for this response Josh.

In relation to performance assessment, you say:

> I agree with Liz that scrutinising volunteer board members would
> dissuade people from standing for election.  Personally I would
> welcome the possibility of further development of my skills required
> to perform my duties as an auDA Director.

I'm unconvinced by the argument that scrutinising volunteer board members would
dissuade people from standing for election.  And even if they didn't stand,
that's not to say that those who replaced them wouldn't do as good a job.

I note that voluntary Board directors, by virtue of there directorships on the
auDA Board, may gain national standing, prestige, power, influence, leverage and
"psychic" income and so on.  I also note that auDA demand class elections are
well contested.

To me it's about greater accountability and transparency of individual
director's performance.  I see a great merit in formalised performance
measurement of auDA directors.

If the findings of an evaluation of individual director's performance were
confidential to the Board, people may not be discouraged from standing.  I see
great merit in identifying under, acceptable and superior performance.  At least
it provides a basis for individual improvement and pathways to leadership based
on merit.

Ian Johnston


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh§email.nu]
> Sent: 23 November 2003 2:35 PM
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] auDA AGM: Open email to auDA directors seeking
> election - demand class
>
>
> Ian,
>
> These are good questions, thanks for asking.
>
> > 1. What do you see as your key achievements as an auDA director, mainly
> > during last year or two as a director?
>
> I have been an active member on the following board committees:
> - Finance and Audit
> - auDA Vision
> - auDA Foundation
> - Executive Remuneration
> - Domain Transfers Policy Review
>
> The output of these committees is self-evident.
>
> During my term as an auDA director I have maintained strong relationships
> with ccTLD and gTLD contacts.  Feedback from these people always suggests
> that auDA is leading the way with policy and technical advances.
>
> Prior to being elected to the board I was an active member on the auDA Name
> Policy Advisory Panel (http://www.auda.org.au/policy/panel-name-2000/).
>
> Outside of my responsibilities as an auDA Director, I am a staunch consumer
> advocate and will continue to maintain the following web sites regardless of
> the outcome of next week's election:
> - http://whatsinaname.com.au/
> - http://whatsinaname.com.au/renewals/
> - http://whatsinaname.com.au/slammers/
>
> > 2. How do you see the DNS regime in Australia might be improved and over
> > what time frame?
>
> auDA has been well managed through significant and complex technical,
> political, policy and process changes over the past 2 years.  The auDA
> executive and staff should be congratulated for their efforts for a seamless
> transition and implementation of a new technical and policy framework.
>
> That being said, auDA resting on its laurels is not an option for moving
> forward.  auDA's main accountability is to the Australian Internet Community
> and I believe that the organisation must maintain and further the integrity,
> robustness, value and stability of the .au space.
>
> The specific areas which I believe require improvement over the next year
> are:
> - a reduction of the $11 auDA fee.
> - encouragement a reseller forum and community.
> - tighter control of reseller activities by auDA (already underway).
> - strong disincentives for rogue operators operating in the .au domain
> industry.
> - to ensure that the auDA Foundation is well formed and managed.
>
> Over the next two years I would like auDA to:
> - maintain and enhance their technical ability (ENUM, IPv6, DNSSEC, etc)
> directly or through the registries, registrars and resellers.
> - review and change domain name eligibility policies without reducing the
> value of a .au domain name.
>
> > 3. What are you views on auDA corporate governance and risk management?
>
> I concur with Liz Williams answer (paraphrased below) that:
> - auDA has legislative obligations under the Corporations Law.
> - risk needs to be clearly identified and contingencies allowed for.
> - risk is limited due to a healthy budget, stable management team, steady
> board and membership which meets reasonable corporate governance standards.
>
> > 4. What percentage of auDA Board meetings did you participate in during
> > your last term as a director?
>
> Attendance at auDA board meetings is recorded in the minutes here:
> http://www.auda.org.au/about/minutes/
>
> I have missed 1 board meeting out of 14 (93% attendance) since I was elected
> (Nov 2001) and I will be attending the AGM in Sydney this Thursday.
>
> Missed:	2002: Apr
>
> Attended:	2001: Nov (AGM)
> 		2002: Feb, Jun, Aug, Sep (EGM), Oct, Nov (AGM)
> 		2003: Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug, Oct (x2).
>
> I also represented auDA at the ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro, March 2003.
>
> > 5. Do you support collective *and* individual performance evaluations of
> > auDA Directors by an independent entity? (For example, see the works of
> > Lyn Ralph, Phil Khoury and Alan Cameron of Cameron Ralph Pty Ltd
> > <www.cameronralph.com.au>.)
>
> Possibly, the CameronRalph benefits and uses web page
> (http://www.cameronralph.com.au/Benefits%20and%20Uses.htm) suggests a few
> things which might be of value to auDA and its board.
>
> I agree with Liz that scrutinising volunteer board members would dissuade
> people from standing for election.   Personally I would welcome the
> possibility of further development of my skills required to perform my
> duties as an auDA Director.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Josh
> --
> http://josh.id.au/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.
>
>