vicc§cia.net.au wrote:
] a) stakeholders not allowed to participate.
 
] b) anti business sentiment amongst many of dns participants.
 
] c) silly dns rules.

] d) lack of overseas participation
 
] e) lack of privacy within the sld.
 
] f) lack of sub domains under .au.
 
] the principal issue that needs resolving is the introduction
] of commercial registrars into the .au name space. wether that is
] via competion in .com.au or in new slds is not as important as
] the issuing of registrar type licenses. once we have more then
] a major singular financial stakeholder then we can be in a postion 
] to determine who the real stakeholder are.

One lesson that I would draw from the so-called "old dns list" is
that if you don't focus on the main game in a mailing list, you will
not get anything done in that list.

I'm sure most of us could argue with Vic about various points a-f
above.  Instead I call on participants in the so-called "new dns list"
to concentrate on the issue about which there *does* seem to be a rough
consensus, that there should be competition at the registrar level in
com.au.  I wouldn't want us to get bogged again and have to create a
"dns list mark III" so that we can re-focus.

If everybody could ask themselves "Does this message I am composing
help progress towards competition in com.au?" before sending each
and every message to this list, I would be a very happy man indeed.
(Well, I can dream, can't I?)
__________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management