Hi Mark,

I've waited till now to answer this, because I'm still staggered at
what you've written below.  You've publically stated that ADNA
compromised the community consultation aspect of industry
self-regulation, because you all knew better than the people you
purported to consult.

ADNA organised the meetings.  You had every opportunity to call
together *everyone* who needed to be involved, and to provide them with
the information they needed to make informed decisions.

How did you know they were a "room full of trademark lawyers" -- were
they wearing wigs?  Robes?  You didn't know, you assumed.  And whether
or not they were is irrelevant anyway: they were the interested
constituency.

If you thought that the process had failed, that the wrong people had
attended, that those who attended were ignorant, then you had NO right
to charge ahead with *any* decisions in this arena.

You should have gone back and done it again until you got it right.

You should have convened a committee or working party.  And you should
have listened to them.

Remember all the stuff in the M&A that I was concerned about regarding
committees, and how the board could just ignore them anyway?  What if
the constituency had been CSIRO or the AVCC or government?  Would you
just ignore their expressed wishes anyway because you knew better?

This is what is wrong with ADNA!  You haven't the faintest concept that
what you did was wrong.  All industry self-regulation seems to mean to
you is jargon to use to push through your own agendas.

Kate Lance


 | >   1. that ADNA endorse the eligibility criteria for com.au being
 | >        extended to include existing Australian trade marks; and
 | >   2. that ADNA endorse the creation of a new 2LD tm.au,
 |
 | I spoke very strongly against the proposal, for all of the following
 | reasons:
 | 
 | 1. The Constituency.
 | The Constituency was almost exclusively trademark protection lawyers,
 | not Trademark owners.  
  ... 
 | 2. The Process
 | Although the concept of the forums was good, afterwards I had real
 | problems with the way the process was handled, and the inability
 | of such a forum on its own to either cover the issues or the
 | options in a meaningful way.  
  ... 
 | 3. The Motive
 | "We must force the DNS to protect our (big company) trademark
 | interests".
 | I don't agree with that attitude, which I belive is also a factor
 | in the stance taken by the US with their Green Paper
  ... 
 | 4. The Lack of Options
 | If we accept that a room full of trademark lawyers will focus
 | almost exclusively on 'how to protect trademarks', there are
 | some options that were not clearly put to the meeting.
  ... 
 | 5. Lack of Understanding of Side Effects
 | There was clearly also a lack of understanding of side effects
 | that might flow from the favoured option.
  ... 
 | For all of the above reasons, I spoke strongly against
 | Peter's recommendation at the meeting.
  ... 
 | ISOC-AU asking why on earth ADNA didn't automatically acceed to the
 | wishes of a room full of trademark lawyers is pretty funny.