Here are some suggestions for a 0.01b.  Use, adapt or throw out the window
at your discretion.

] DNS FAQ v0.01a  (DRAFT)
] 
] 1. History  (much from Geoff Huston 9-Dec-1996)
 
]   remained with Robert Elz to the present. Major second level delegations
]   were undertaken to define distinct name spaces educational bodies
						  ^ for
]   (".edu.au"), government bodies ("gov.au"), commercial bodies (".com.au")
]   and network service providers (".net.au"). This delegation structure is
]   broadly similar to that undertaken within many other nTLDs, and name
							 ^ccTLDs
 
]   This was undertaken after a 4 month long process of industry
]   consultation, under the auspices of a DNS Summit, hosted by the Internet
]   Service Providers' Industry Association, INTIAA. [which was a pity,
]   because most "stake holders" were not members -- Antony]

I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to pass judgment on whether
something is "a pity" in a (proposed?) FAQ, but the note:
	most "stake holders" were not members
seems accurate and unbiased.

] 2. ADNA, Kre, IIA - lots of acronyms
] 
]   ADNA (Australian Domain Name Authority), whilst having a pretty cool name
]   for the purpose, completely failed to get off the ground and is considered
]   dead by most DNS list members. Their web site is www.adna.asn.au

"completely failed to get off the ground" is a bit strong.   It did after
all have meetings and produce documents (which may be useful for future work).
"failed to acheive its objectives" might be a more circumspect way to put it.

]   Kre (Robert Elz) is the one that has delegation control over .AU
]   presently.

s/is the one that has/still retains/
 
] 3. .AU or .COM.AU
] 
]   The DNS discussion should cover all of .AU and not just .COM.AU.

This could be a contentious statement (policy decision).

]   Whilst .COM.AU is the largest Domain area, it is not all of it,
]   and any DNS governing body will have to cover all of .AU

The way I read this you are assuming:
(1) That there must be a "governing body" (which is a less general
    term than Tony Barry's "Keeper-of-AU")
(2) That there will be a single governing body (as opposed to, for example
    a governing body for com.au/net.au, another one for edu.au, etc)
(3) It is not appropriate to prioritise (fast track?) the handling of
    certain 2LDs like com.au.  (Or is that just my inference?)

IMHO assumptions like these contributed to the speed of progress made
by ADNA.

[ I was going to put some more stuff here, but I'm going to move it
  to a new thread, so that this thread can concentrate on the FAQ. ]

]   Currently there are 8 sub-delegations of .AU -
] 	Melbourne IT	- com.au
] 	Geoff Huston	- gov.au edu.au info.au
] 	Hugh Irvine	- net.au (managed by Connect.com.au)
] 	Michael Malone	- asn.au
] 	Robert Elz	- org.au id.au(??)

Robert Elz has oversight of id.au (in the same way as au itself),
but registries for id.au are located at 3LDs (xxx.id.au) rather than
2LDs (like org.au).

Could you clarify whether this is a list of who does the operational
registrar work or a list of who is responsible for oversight and policy?

]   Ultimately, Robert Elz has the final say on what happens, however I
]   believe he will not assign .AU to a body that does not have the full
]   support of these sub-delegates (and rightly so).

and probably a rough consensus of other stake-holders too.
 
] 5. The DNS mailing list
] 
] The NEW DNS mailing list is being hosted by the Western Australia Internet
] Association. The list is open to anyone who wishes to join, however the
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would be better just to remove that statement, since it is incorrect.
(I can think of at least one counter-example, fortunately.)
__________________________________________________________________________
 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