Simon,

>Get a life, Mark. Descending to this sort of bullying tactic (you show me
>yours before I'll show you mine) indicates just how badly broken the
>process of 'communication' between ADNA and other interested parties has
>become. ADNA is operating in a vacuum of its own making.

The point I am trying to make, Simon, is that its actually a case of:

"I've shown you mine, please show me yours."

>ADNA is the last organisation I can think of that should be demanding
>results 'tomorrow'. I have lost count of the missed deadlines to open up
>competition in the com.au namespace, and of the number of times ADNA has
>ignored 'community input' in the formulation of its documents, where that
>community input falls foul of the internal agenda of one of the people
>driving ADNA.

ADNA has missed multiple deadlines multiple times.  That is due to
lack of resources.  It has still done more than any other entity to
achieve something.

>You're trying to have a ADNA hold debate about the fine details, and
>actively trying to use the existing ADNA proposed documents as a debating
>weapon, while ignoring the high level policy issues and vested interests
>almost completely.
Both the fine details, and the high level issues have to be resolved.
Since there is a time element to both fine and high level issues,
it is logical that they be worked on in parallel, rather than in series.
An attitude of 'why worry about the fine details when the high level stuff
hasn't been agreed' is crazy - it just extends the time frame of the
total process.

A mature attitude of all players would be:

"We will provide input and feedback to help get each part (both the detail,
and the high level stuff) into shape, even though we understand that
completing one level without the other is not enough to achieve the total
objective".

>What's it going to take to make this obvious? The desertion of every
single
>existing DNA and intending DNA from active ADNA participation, with the
>exception of Melbourne IT?

This goes back to my point about all Registrars being in the same boat.
Suppose we all manage to come to an agreement, we change the M and A,
we get to a stage where entities including ISOC-AU are willing to give
public support, we get the kiss of approval from Buddha, God, and Vishnu.

Each Registrar would still exactly where they are now.  They are not going
to cede some of their existing authority unless they are happy with both
the high level stuff and the low level detail stuff.

The existing registrars who are running a commercial operation
have agreements with thousands of customers, and they are not going
to jeopardise that business, just because one or more additional
groups, plus one or more additional Registrars, are now able to
publicly support ADNA.


>The notion of moving sideways into trademark based domain spaces just
>illustrates how silly this has already become. For heavens' sake, you
>haven't got the existing domains working right yet, this is not the time
to
>add new ones! Especially ones with really serious legal contention related
>to them!

Thats one point of view, although there are no legal issues with a new
domain
that do not exist with existing domains.

But here's another point of view:

Its 'silly' that there is demand by internet users which is not currently
being met.  Not to mention, it appears to conflict with ISOC-AU objects
2 and 3 :)

Trialling a new structure on a new SLD actually has some advantages.
* It would prove the use of the SRS software
* It would prove the useability of a method of licensing multiple
registrars
* It would prove the useability of a publicly developed policy for
an Australian SLD.

and remove all those things from being used as reasons why
competition should not happen in existing SLDs.

It would achieve that with a low risk strategy - at worst,
what would be the outcome?

*The outcome would be that all the existing SLDs and
Registrars would be unaffected - and I do mean all.
*They could continue their existing activities and
could watch with interest and decide if they were happy with
the high level and low level stuff associated with .pr.au
*There would be a new SLD meeting some currently unfulfilled
user needs.
*There would be multiple Registrars operating in that
SLD so the fees for domain name licences might be much
lower than in some existing SLDs.
*There would be one more entity running an SLD in .au. So
what - there's already quite a few.

Using a new SLD to resolve some issues isn't automatically a
bad thing.

Regards, Mark