Quoting Adam Todd on Sunday July 07, 2002:
| 
| >For those not familiar with the long history of .au domain name regulation,
| 
| And the demise of the first attempt ADNA.

So? Do you have anything insightful to add? 

You acknowledge the demise of ADNA, yet last week you mailed the list
that you don't need to submit your ideas for new 2LDs to auDA's review
panel because you sent them to ADNA years ago. So which is it going to
be?

| >Over a period long predating auDA's formation, the Federal Government made
| >clear, publicly, that its preferred option for .au regulation was that it
| >not be done by the government, but by an industry/community organisation.
| 
| Oh if it were only so simple.  Actually I have the video tape of exactly 
| what was said in Singapore by Paul Twomey who use to work for NOIE - the 
| Government Agency.
| "I can see we can't control this [DNS] from here, so I'll be taking back 
| that we need to find other ways."
| One day I'll put the video online.

Why bother? It is clear that everyone involved considers that ccTLDs
can be controlled by the country's government. You need only look at
South Africa. The US DoC and/or ICANN is going to cede to requests by a
country's government is they want to run their ccTLD.

If his opinion is important, Paul Twomey alluded to this fact (sorry
I am not in the habit of carrying a video camera with me) in the GAC
meeting in Romania two weeks ago.

Yes, it really is this simple: "the Federal Government made clear,
publicly, that its preferred option for .au regulation was that it not
be done by the government, but by an industry/community organisation."

| Now that I totally agree with.  I'm certainly not for Government 
| administration of DNS, but I'm not for auDA's philosophy 
| either.  Especially as ICANN starts to crumble.

What does auDA's "philosophy" have to do with ICANN's status? Can you
explain? 

kim