Thanks Lenz. Good points. This is getting seriously off topic and even beer won't make it so. I will make a few points and then move on to the InternetNZ members list. 1) InternetNZ is not broken and does not need fixing. It does need to keep improving and will. 2) Council is open, all our minutes are online and the meetings are recorded and you can listen. Members can attend any council meeting. We can do better in communicating with members. 3) We need a healthy balance of geeks, governance, community, policy, new blood, experience and several other skills on council. 4) Council is democratic. People who complain about things not being the way they want, have failed to convince council. 5) Frank March is best candidate for president and is a strong proponent for the NOG. LightSpeed Pete El Presidente until July 30 lenz wrote:

hi,

i don't see too much wrong with INZ - the only concern i (and some others) had was the lack of geeks in the new proposed council. this is the reason for some of the later bunch of guys on the election list for council to stand up and put forward their name. in my view this is pure counter balance to a otherwise probably too corporate/governance focused direction of INZ. INZ is in the lucky position to have two brilliant guys on top of DNCL and NZRS so that there is not too much oversight needed on that front which gives resources for extending their work done in things like the new copyright legislation, software patents and the more internet related things like being a centre of excellence and expertise in all matters of internet governance. strengthen the position of INZ as _the_ entity of consultation for any matters relating to internet governance should be the biggest goal i think. this would imply that NZ government officially accepts INZ as the governing body of the .nz namespace and (hopefully) prevent disasters as we had with s92a.

cheers lenz

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Drew Calcott mailto:drew.calcott(a)auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

Steven Heath wrote:

> > The first to say it on NZNOG perhaps. >

Which is exactly my point. I'm guessing quite a few people on here are in my position and really don't know what is going on with INZ at all... so it would be nice if people are going to go soliciting votes if they could spell out what they believe the problems are.

INZ things may not be directly NZNOG related, but the list is currently dead quiet otherwise, so now that the issue has been raised, how about you come in for a discussion over a cup of tea, rather than just standing outside on the lawn holding a sign with your name on it?

Regards, -- ---- Drew Calcott

Linux Systems Administrator Science IT University of Auckland e: drew.calcott(a)auckland.ac.nz mailto:drew.calcott(a)auckland.ac.nz p: +64-9-373 7599, ext#: 84269 _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- iWantMyName.com painless domain registration (finally) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

The below strikes me as political doublespeak and weaselwords. One observation I'd like to share is that people who regularly quote the large dollar values of their lofty goals and the Very Important Money they want to wield are out of step with the nature of this audience. 2009/7/9 Michael Wallmannsberger

This is a difficult question to answer in this forum, not least because a discussion could stray far from the purpose of the list. However, issues that may affect the operation of the SRS and DNS are highly relevant and the topic has been raised, so I think you deserve an answer.

I want to avoid dredging up the past or giving an impression that I think there is any one person or event that has given rise to "problems" at InternetNZ. There are likely to be at least as many accounts of what has gone on as there are people involved and, in fairness, I think everyone who has participated in the running of InternetNZ has done so in good faith, with honest intentions and for the greater good. The organisation has grown quickly and its needs have changed substantially. We used to be a volunteer organisation and now we are a $6 million per annum provider of national critical infrastructure, a lobby group and market regulator. The pace of change means we sometimes find that structures, processes and even people that were once right are no longer what we need today.

The detail is deathly boring but you could get a flavour of some of the issues confronting the organisation by reading the Council papers at http://internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/council. This will also give you an idea of the quality of information and analysis that the Council has to base its decision making on (often inadequate, in my view).

One way to summarise the "problems" is to say that the organisation has been relatively poorly governed, is overly complex and is disengaged from its key constituencies and stakeholders.

InternetNZ is a high-potential organisation that is performing well in a number of areas (e.g. running the registry, managing .nz policy, some aspects of domestic and international advocacy) but is performing below its potential in many respects. We could do better with our website, the quality of our membership offering, the size of our membership base, managing our money, our policy and advocacy work in New Zealand and the quality of our strategy and decision making.

As an anecdote, our most recent members' consultation meeting in Auckland was attended by, I think, just three members who were not staff or paid directors. One of those members was new to InternetNZ and observed to me afterwards that the meeting was evidence of a "wasted opportunity". An organisation with our kind of resources and relevance should be able to engage with its stakeholders better than that.

The performance of the Council and leadership are key to unlocking the organisation's potential. A lack of clarity and agreement about the respective roles of the Council members and staff is one major issue that has held the Society back. An organisation of the scope and scale of InternetNZ needs to be professionally run. In order for the Council, representing the members, to be able to shape and steer the organisation, there must be a clear distinction and a constructive relationship between governance and management.

I am advocating, as a way forward, a different mix of skills, perspective and behaviours amongst councillors. Only the InternetNZ members can decide in favour of that. That is what the election is about.

Regards,

Michael

It has been pointed out to me that the message I posted to this list on Thursday last week could be read as a comment on the performance of InternetNZ staff. That meaning was not my intention and I would like to state categorically that the staff at InternetNZ do an excellent job. I apologise for any implication that my comments related in any way to staff or appointed board members and for any concern that this has caused. Regards, Michael

Andy Linton wrote:

The NZRS and DNC do a fine job of running the registry on behalf of New Zealanders and as far as I can see have been running well.

I agree.