The enforcement of Policy should not be profit or costs driven. Yes costs and resources are considered in the overall scheme, when setting budgets etc, but auDA has a responsibility to the broad au Internet community to provide a solid regulatory framework. There's a balance involved. Actually if you drill deeper and speak to the staff that take the calls, filter and enforce the policy I reckon they'd argue that the policy enforcing staff at auDA are close to under resourced! Its often easy to view auDA through the frame of a profit making organisation and draw conclusions based on that. I know - I've done so aswell. But the role of auDA as Policy Authority and Regulatory Provider is on a non profit basis. I guess a rough parallel for policy resolution may be the Banking Industry Ombudsman. If you want to make a complaint about the banks you don't expect any policy that they enforce to be based on the cost of enforcing that policy. You just want to make sure it is the right policy to protect the consumer or business irrespective of enforcement costs. In regards to updating policy that doesn't work - that's a separate issue and needs review. As is being done right now via the Review Panel. In regards to Bretts comments on Opex - from my experience the budget items are reviewed, and discussed before reaching majority approval from the Board. Ok - sure agreed there's always room for tweaking here and there as in any organisation. The auCD roll up was definitely discussed in depth! and in the end auDA feels it gained experienced and valuable staff that have already improved communication and transparency levels (newly released activities such as blog, newsletters, registrar visits and Australian Best Practice Awards etc). Improved communications and openness is certainly an issue that people have spoken to me about, and personally I'm happy to see the increased activity, and there's more coming. Anyway - good luck with the elections everyone I see some strong contenders ... With Regards, Amin Kroll Managing Director _________________________________________________________ Hostway Corporation | IntaServe W: http://www.hostway.com.au W: http://www.intaserve.com E: amin§hostway.com.au T: 1800 800 071 T: + 61.2 8262 6666 F: + 61.2 8262 6699 This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of either Hostway Corporation Pty Ltd or IntaServe Pty Ltd. From: dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com§dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+amin.kroll=intaserve.com§dotau.org] On Behalf Of David Lye Sent: Friday, 15 October 2010 7:10 AM To: dns§dotau.org Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7 In an idealistic world, maybe. However in reality, money is usually the primary driver for organisations to improve efficiencies and reduce wastage. If you don't consider the bottom line, it's too easy to just paper over these cracks by employing more resources which obviously isn't the best outcome. Cheers David _____ From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org on behalf of dns-request§dotau.org Sent: Fri 15/10/2010 6:00 AM To: dns§dotau.org Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7 Send DNS mailing list submissions to dns§dotau.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to dns-request§dotau.org You can reach the person managing the list at dns-owner§dotau.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of DNS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 (Adrian Kinderis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:07:13 +1100 From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian§ausregistry.com.au> To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3F5A24A144§off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup. local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Policies that don't work or are inconsistently applied should always be reviewed when appropriate. Reviewing them because of cost savings isn't a smart idea... Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian§ausregistry.com.au Web: www.ausregistry.com.au The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+adrian=ausregistry.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of David Lye Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:21 PM To: dns§dotau.org Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 Think of the savings that would be made by not trying to enforce so many subjective policies. There are so many areas that are not clearly defined in some of these polices (eg misspelling, monetisation to name a couple). Grey areas just means one party is going to always feel disgruntled and often means the dispute is protracted. You also get the case where people argue relatively trivial matters as a matter of principle which is a real time-waster Cheers David Lye Trivial complaint can risk causing a protracted dispute where yo -----Original Message----- From: dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-bounces+davidlye=privatefleet.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of dns-request§dotau.org Sent: Thursday, 14 October 2010 6:00 AM To: dns§dotau.org Subject: DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 Send DNS mailing list submissions to dns§dotau.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to dns-request§dotau.org You can reach the person managing the list at dns-owner§dotau.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of DNS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Kim Davies) 2. Re: 2010 auDA Election (Brett Fenton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:21:54 -0700 From: Kim Davies <kim§cynosure.com.au> To: dns§dotau.org Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election Message-ID: <20101013022154.GA2543§cynosure.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, I wrote: | | 1. The _reduction of domain name prices_ ??? by reducing auDA???s fee to | | Registrars; | | What impact would this have on auDA's programmes, budget or | expenditure? Are there specific services auDA performs that should be reduced to accommodate this? | ... I have received a number of responses to this email, all off list - not from the candidate but from other members. It is a shame there is no open discussion about these kind of issues, because I think it is useful to discuss the future of .au and how it can improve. That is why this list was created. However, one person took exception and thinks that I shared privileged conversations that should be kept private. Their view is that candidates should not have to answer questions from members, and that the material they spam to members to ask them to elect them are confidential communications. What kind of accountability is this? I am dumbfounded. kim ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:56:27 +1100 From: Brett Fenton <brett.fenton§netregistry.com.au> To: dns§dotau.org Subject: Re: [DNS] 2010 auDA Election Message-ID: <201010131456.27706.brett.fenton§netregistry.com.au> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Kim, I don't have an opinion on the discuss/not discuss view and the publication of an email, if Erhan is okay with it being discussed in public then that would be good enough for me. I would make some comment on reduction on costs / opex however whether that spurs discussion or not. In my own personal view (and I'm speaking as an individual not in my capacity of working in a Registrar), I think the travel line in the auDA budgets is not only excessive it's obscene. auDA while I was on the board made a commitment that if auCD wasn't financially viable after the initial cash injection from the generic domain auctions, that the program would be rolled up. Well the money is exhausted and all that's happened is that auDA have absorbed the ongoing costs and it's business as usual. To an outside observer there seems to be no competive tender process to auDA for the provision of ongoing contract services, legals as one example. I certainly think that the board as part of their corporate governance should be looking at the entire opex budget for auDA regardless of whether this ultimately lowers domain pricing or not. Though on the issue of domain pricing it is my understanding that each registration now contributes 25c to the auDA foundation. Which I think in and of itself is scandalous. I would welcome some healthy community debate around these and any other items, whether you happen to agree with my particular point of view or not. Regards, Brett Fenton. > Hi all, > > I wrote: > | | 1. The _reduction of domain name prices_ ??? by reducing > | | auDA???s fee to > | | > | | Registrars; > | > | What impact would this have on auDA's programmes, budget or expenditure? > | Are there specific services auDA performs that should be reduced to > | accommodate this? ... > > I have received a number of responses to this email, all off list - not > from the candidate but from other members. It is a shame there is no open > discussion about these kind of issues, because I think it is useful to > discuss the future of .au and how it can improve. That is why this list > was created. > > However, one person took exception and thinks that I shared privileged > conversations that should be kept private. Their view is that candidates > should not have to answer questions from members, and that the material > they spam to members to ask them to elect them are confidential > communications. > > What kind of accountability is this? I am dumbfounded. > > kim > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DNS mailing list DNS§dotau.org http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 ********************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DNS mailing list DNS§dotau.org http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/listinfo/dns End of DNS Digest, Vol 63, Issue 7 ********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.cynosure.com.au/mailman/private/dns/attachments/20101015/256a4dd9/attachment-0001.htm>Received on Thu Oct 14 2010 - 18:26:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:10 UTC