George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> I think whats wanted is a process which permits ford to have their name
> but excludes speculative investment in generic forms as a traded or valued
> thing in itself.
> 
I totally agree with you - PG

> Unless people in com contexts actually *want* to create a new dirivitives 
> market...
> 
I don't believe that is the case.

> As for governance, I partly agree but if you refine the behaviour NOW you
> create an expectation that persists under any new process. I think the
> smallest possible changes should be done before there is a demonstrable
> public-interest oversight in place.
> 
George, there IS a demonstrable public interest oversight in place, in
the form of the DNS Industry Forum, which has been atended by observers
from the ACCC and DOCA to date. We have the opportunity to keep
strengthening this Forum, through broader attendance at the meetings -
which depends on more participation from those reading these mailing
lists - and through creating a more formally representative,
incorporated governance structure to support industry self-regulation. 

> What we're doing now is not quite it.
> 
> -George

I adhere to the view that improvements to the naming policy can and
should be made ASAP, in order to serve COM.AU's customer base; and that
these improvements will be largely transparent to the issues of whether
there will be single or multiple DNAs for COM.AU etc, and independent of
the nature of future governance structures. 

Regards
PG