> That community of interest has some crucial elements in it both in terms of
> individuals and organizations of relevance. I will list a sample of some of
> those here:
> 
> - AUNIC (implemented by Telstra Internet)
> - Robert Elz (DN authority for .au and some important subdomains of same
> including com.au)
> - Geoff Huston wearing any of his multiple relevant hats (e.g. Telstra
> Internet ; AUNIC; DN authority for edu.au and gov.au, etc)
> - Michael Malone (asn.au DN)
> - Peter Gerrand (ceo Melbourne IT, current com.au operator)

Robert Elz (then COM.AU DNA), Geoff Huston, (then net.au DNA) Hugh
Irvine, and myself attended the first meeting, way back in July. I'm
not sure who attended the meeting in Melbourne in October.

At the last meeting (Sydney, 17/01/97), well before any court
action was even considered, myself and PG were there, but none
of the other mentioned parties attended.


> As a result, I ask people attending to think, before Friday, whether there
> is any benefit to legally instantiating ADNA until those muzzled people can
> contribute.

There is currently no legal or ethical reason for people not to
attend or contribute to proceedings.

The federal court action was not a suit, nor a criminal proceeding.
iiNet was not suing M-IT for money, nor attempting to put anyone
in prison. Noone is actually legally muzzled.

The only possible reason I can imagine is that an attendee may
be concerned about voicing an opinion that could later be
quoted against them. This is still puzzling in the case of Geoff
Huston, since there are no claims of improprietry or illegal
actions by Telstra or Geoff, and neither has lodged any intention
to oppose.

I'm flying in from Perth to attend on Friday.  I believe that if
we all keep our eyes focussed on the reason for the meeting,
then there need not be any conflict of interests.

MM