At 17:49 7/07/2002 +1000, you wrote:

>>| 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.

What a nonsense.

auDA should learn from ADNA's mistakes, and it has. auDA however should
not for all eternity reference every email or comment received in 1997
by another organisation whenever it is doing it's day to day work.

If you were serious about wanting to contribute to .au, then instead of
grandstanding you would have taken 5 minutes to grab your plan (which
you readily admit you have at hand) and sent it to auDA's names policy panel.
Problem solved.


>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.

That is your opinion.

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

auDA has always had closed board meetings. To have an open circus would
severely hamper auDA's ability to effectively work.

Any member can vote for board members, and any member of the public can
become a member.

>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.

Who is rewriting history or denying what they said? Right now (2002),
governments have a say in how their ccTLDs are run.


>No, the Federal Government was approached by people who gained to benefit 
>from auDA having control.

Of course! Why would anyone want to set up auDA or have it run .au if
there was no benefit? The fact is a wide cross-section of the community
recognised .au needed to be run better. Sure, everyone had their own
reasons. But the people are broadly representative of different sections
of the community, which is why...

>  That is not self regulation, nor is it regulation by an industry or 
> community organisation.

... this is complete nonsense.


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

Keep sulking then.

>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?

Well I have no idea when or why he said that, or in what context. Maybe he said
it when he just took up the job and didn't know of ADNA. Maybe he didn't 
say it.
Maybe he was just mistaken or confused. Who knows? What point are you 
trying to
prove? If it is another glib remark I don't see any point in you searching 
your
immense archives.


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

auDA has, by in large, stakeholder support. auDA is doing its day to day job.
auDA is solvent. auDA is working.

ICANN on the other hand is struggling with buy-in, funding, etc which means 
they
can't be effective at their job. They have a very different brief to auDA.

Sure they may be similarly structured organisations, maybe they aren't. It 
is the
objectives and the outcomes that are important, not whether the structure 
is the
same.

kim
personal opinion only, as always.