>| 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?

auDA should be using ALL material from the ADNA process irrespective.  The 
only reason ADNA crashed was because of my constant pressure for an honest, 
open and public system to be put in place.

I refer to Kate Lances comments in the ADNA mail list as one of the last 
messages prior to the crash.  ADNA was structured like the IAHC and it 
crashed, like the IAHC.  Problem was, auDA came to being to line up with 
ICANN and it's policies are somewhat similar, thus it will crash, just like 
ICANN.  I don't need to help it this time.

When will auDA close all board meetings and remove the ability for the 
public to select board members.  Oh goodness, it's already happened.

I even have a copy of the message relating to a "Public auDA Meeting" where 
only selecting invited individuals were permitted to attend.  <smile>

History and archives are a nasty thing.  Especially in the right hands.

>| "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.

I've read that three times and I still can't quite work out the meaning.

>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.

I'm in the habit of recording anything that might be useful.  You'd be 
surprised how often someone DENIES an action or activity, or simply 
re-writes history for the sake of their benefit.

>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."

No, the Federal Government was approached by people who gained to benefit 
from auDA having control.  That is not self regulation, nor is it 
regulation by an industry or community organisation.

But I said this in the days of ADNA.  Nothing has changed.

Oh except that I'm sure sometime in the last 12 months I noticed Chris 
Disspain saying that ADNA never existed when one subscriber to the list 
took my advice and raised the question.  Not sure how that worked.  I'm 
sure I can find copies of the postings if I absolutely must prove every 
ounce of every word and denial.  But will that solve anything?

>| 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?

Follow the foot steps.  The processes are not that unique.