I was a vociferous and strong critic of ADNA. I don't see the same reasons
to be critical of auDA. In fact, ISOC-AU is supportive of auDA and I echo
that support from a personal perspective.

I would like to see auDA work, and I would like to see a clear timeline for
transition of .AU to auDA, via a government agency to clarify that .AU vests
via the government. For me, this is more than symbolic: it provides the clear
reason for a legal challange to auDA should there ever be questions about its
competency to manage, and shows that elected government asserts its ownership
in the act of vesting to a specific body. (I do not presage a challenge, I
just think its prudent to cover for it)

I am considerably less happy that people are canvassing changes to  2LD
policy at this time. Since MIT is in near-IPO state, there are strong
financial issues at stake in any discussion of the com.au policy and I
personally feel they are inappropriate in this context. 

It is also worth noting that KRE retains substantive control of com.au and the
current "operating lease" for want of a better word is up for renewal, so the
timing issues here are very sensitive. (this is all a matter of public record
as I understand it. MIT do not "own" com.au)

I wish people would stop confusing the issues. .AU should transit to a
competent authority. I think that is auDA. It demonstrates (for me) the
processes, and the level of commitment and buy-in that ADNA lacked.

Now doesn't look to me to be the time to start to discuss generics, or
name policies, or any other issues in the 2LD. I can't see how it is going
to help make KRE feel comfortable about the transition. We have a documented
process how we CAN discuss these things. Lets not pre-empt them.

cheers

-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: ggm§dstc.edu.au    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au