> This bit is personal opinion: This is NOT something ADNA should be doing.
> New 2LDs are a matter for a top-level policy body. ADNA is not that.

It is ADNA's goal to become the .AU top level policy body.

It is understood that this will require much more work and a solid
track record of achievement.  However, this is specifically what
ADNA was created for, and this should remain its long term goal.


> ADNA should stick to .COM.AU.

No.  You were pretty close up to this point.  ADNA is not, and was
never intended to be, a body to keep an eye on Melbourne IT.  COM.AU
is certainly the area that attracts most attention, and should be
ADNA's focus.  If competition is the appropriate response, then a
recommendation of this should be presented to Melbourne IT. Even then,
M-IT will need to be satisfied that the framework is workable.

Any actions by ADNA should also include an analysis of other 2LD's
with any suggestions being forward to their current owner for
consideration.

I would definitely suggest an examination of whether new 2LD's are
warranted, with considerable public input. If yes, then
recommendations could be forward to the current .AU authority.


> I'm still worried when I see wording like "ADNA [making] decisions as to
> whether it should take them over"... These are not now, and should never be,
> decisions for any body to make. They should be decisions that arise from the
> needs of the relevant inhabitants of the Australian Internet.

I agree strongly.  There is no room for any body, and I include
both ADNA and ISOC-AU, to claim any god given right to simply
walk in and take over.

MM