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

>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?

Here's the post (see below).  In it, Chris Disspain wrote:

> auDA was not in existence in 1998.

I can't see any reference that "ADNA never existed".

Regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chris Disspain <ceo&#167;auda.org.au>
To: <dns&#167;auda.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:29 AM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination as auDA Director

Jeremy,

I feel I must respond to some of the incorrect statements you have made in
this post (some of which are repeated from previous emails of yours). I
would not normally do so but in this case I believe you have questioned the
integrity and bona fides of both the Board and executive of auDA and I am
not prepared to allow such claims to go unanswered.

Firstly, there are 2 significant inaccuracies in your post;

1. You say;
"....in January 1998 ADNA resolved that "the delegates for net.au and org.au
need to be formally invited to join ADNA, and to participate in the
process [of developing a new registry system]".  This seems to have
fallen by the wayside to some degree."

Chris Chaundy, the delegate for net.au is a Director of auDA and has been
since auDA was formed. Robert Elz has been invited to participate on
numerous occasions and has chosen not to.

2. You say;
"It is notable that auDA itself required an
extension of time from the US Government to respond to its Green Paper
on the transfer of the au ccTLD (see
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm) but is
now denying the same latitude to groups such as APANA"

This is neither notable nor correct. auDA was not in existence in 1998. I
have no idea whether the extension was sought by the Australian Government
or some other body as the link you have provided does not take me to a
relevant page. Even if it were true, the attempt to draw a parallel between
a submission to a green paper and a tender bid is spurious. auDA has no
flexibility in respect to extending the time under the RFT. I refer you
clause 2.6 of Part 3 of the RFT which states "auDA will not consider late
tenders". As a lawyer, Jeremy, I'm sure you realise the import of that
clause and I'm sure you are also well aware of the consequences that would
flow if auDA were to extend the deadline to allow one potential bidder to
get their bid in. It is interesting to note that you do not address these
issues in your posts but merely claim that you have been prejudiced in some
way (which is, of course, nonsense). You seem to be contending that 'groups
such as APANA' should be entitled to be treated differently to everyone else
because you claim that you are community minded. Well, you will not be. You
will be treated in the same way as everyone else.
I presume you understand how auDA works but it may help to be clear on the
issue. auDA and its 'incumbent administration' does not create policy, it
implements policy. The policy is created by public panels that sit over a
long period of time and make a series of recommendations to the Board. The
RFT is the result of the Competition Panels Report. This panel sat for
nearly 12 months and took numerous public submissions on what should happen
to the existing 2LDs. auDA is following its recommendations. In other words,
Jeremy, it is not the Boards policy or the executives policy that is being
implemented, it is the policy recommended by the Panel after a lengthy, open
and public process, a process in which you could have been involved.
I have been unable to find any submissions by you to the Panel. If I have
missed them please let me know. Assuming I am correct then perhaps you would
care to comment on why the first auDA heard of your views about the matter
was when you approached me at the WAIA Conference in Perth by which time the
RFT was days away from being published.
Finally, I do not know from where your information about the auDA Board
comes but I suggest you check it for credibility before including statements
in public postings. It is incorrect in every aspect.


Regards,


Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
ceo&#167;auda.org.au
+61-3-9349-4711
www.auda.org.au


-----Original Message-----
From: news [mailto:news&#167;mail.magikweb.net]On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2001 02:09
To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] Nomination as auDA Director

Don Cameron wrote:
>
> My reasons for this decision are a mix of the personal and philosophical,
> however are closely tied to many of the recent comments made on the auDA
> list. I realise now that I am not philosophically aligned to the concept
of
> full .au commercialisation, and should my candidacy be successful, I would
> undoubtedly be placing myself in an untenable position were I subjected to
> the requirements of the auDA Constitution.

I am very sorry to hear this.  In my view the auDA Constitution
certainly does not mandate the full and untrammelled commercialisation
of the .au ccTLD, it just might seem that way from the actions (and some
of the words) of auDA's incumbent administration.  It was not always so;
in January 1998 ADNA resolved that "the delegates for net.au and org.au
need to be formally invited to join ADNA, and to participate in the
process [of developing a new registry system]".  This seems to have
fallen by the wayside to some degree.

In my view auDA is binding its own hands unnecessarily and thereby
abrogating the responsibility to address important issues raised by
dissentient voices within the Internet community and even reportedly
within its own board.  It is notable that auDA itself required an
extension of time from the US Government to respond to its Green Paper
on the transfer of the au ccTLD (see
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm) but is
now denying the same latitude to groups such as APANA.

I do think you should reconsider withdrawing your nomination.  I think
it is important for the board to be as strong and representative as it
can be, since if it is ineffectual it will be unable to curb the
excesses of the consultants, lawyers and accountants who will otherwise
exercise effective control of the organisation, as evidenced by the
board's inability, reportedly against some members' inclinations, to
cause amendments to be effected to the tender documentation before
release.

--
JEREMY MALCOLM <Jeremy&#167;Malcolm.wattle.id.au> http://malcolm.wattle.id.au
Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au)
and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help!
Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger.

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 325 subscribers.
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.


--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 325 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.