> People don't like the idea of 2LDs being created. The people 
> compromise by accepting a statement from ADNA that it will only 
> create 2LDs for commerial purposes.

I'd go further and say that ADNA should not be "creating 2LD's"
at all, at least in the foreseeable future.  ADNA should be
asking for public suggestions for new 2LD's, evaluating them
with public input, and then forming recommendations saying
whether there is a real need for any new 2LD.

Yes, it will take a while.  But there's no immediate rush for
new 2LD's.  What there is a need for (in my opinion) is to 
begin such a process.


> People say that they won't join ADNA because they don't like it's 
> attitude/articles. We call a special meeting of ADNA which anyone can 
> attend to thrash these things out.

Sure.  Personally, I wouldn't object to reducing ADNA to
an ACN and a "willingness to work together" by its members.
Rewriting the constitution to allow more "broad representation"
is not something I  have a problem with.


> Basically I think its time for ISOC-AU, etc. to decide whether they 
> are out to help create a truly representative and useful organisation 
> to sort out DNS in Australia or is blocking ADNA in the interest of 
> some hidden agenda.

Its odd.  I have spoken with several directors of ISOC via
email and telephone over the past month.  On public lists,
there is this sentiment of suspicion and distrust.  Yet, every
time we talk "one on one", I -still- believe there is not
that much distance.

ISOC has succeeded in depersonalising the members of ADNA,
and their sincere wishes, to "ADNA", and we refer to them
as "ISOC".  A round table discussion may help, by removing
ADNA and ISOC and returning us all to the reality of the
people involved.

MM