Peter appears to be engaging in some misleading statements of his own.
I've interpreted a few of his statements to make it easier for people
to follow this on a busy Friday morning.


PG: "Please, my super fund needs more money".
> The heading "INET: COM.AU Renewals not needed" of Michael Mallone's
> recent message to the mailing list is potentially quite misleading, and
> should be ignored. 

Untrue.  We have an undertaking from Melbourne IT, extending the
deadline to April 17.  The subject line is quite appropriate.
Do not send these people any money for domain names registered
prior to November 1, 1996. We will attempt to keep people informed
of the outcomes of this case.

PG: "I wasn't there, and I haven't spoken to my lawyer yet, but ...".
> The Federal Court Judge yesterday refused to hear iiNet's application
> for an interim injunction

Rubbish.  And this is a severe misrepresentation of facts.
I would advise you against speaking on the court's behalf.

We had a hearing yesterday for an urgent injunction
against Melbourne IT.  In order to allow them time to prepare
their case, we offered to defer hearings to the 10/04/97 if
and only if Melbourne IT would move the expiry date to 17/04/97.
Melbourne IT's lawyers appear to be a little more reasonable
than Peter, since they were happy with the proposed dates.

So the statement above borders on the ridiculous.  The Judge
heard us, we tabled a new proposed schedule agreed to by both
parties, and this was accepted.


PG: "We plan to let people know after the deadline has passed and we've
     collected lots of money".
> Some of you will be aware that commencing before, and independent of,
> iiNet initiating its costly court action, Melbourne IT started
> constructive discussions with Pauline Van Winson of ISOC-AU and Luke
> Carruthers of INTIAA concerning an optional alternative approach to the
> treatment of the 'historical' domain names registered before Melbourne
> IT commenced its role on 8 October 1996 as com.au administrator.

Having the outcome announced on March 17, the last date for renewals,
and calling this a successful outcome, is laughable.

We needed to go to court to get the date extended now, before we
sent you money.  All other communications before this time had
been ignored, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the
situation.


PG: "I'm trying to save face here. Humour me".
> I note that Michael Mallone is seeking to claim credit through
> his court action for changes that were already close to agreement
> between Melbourne IT and the principal Internet industry associations,

a) The court action is launched by iiNet.  Maybe a professor's salary
   is higher than I thought, but I don't have the personal ability to
   afford to fight you myself.

b) We're not seeking to claim credit for anything.  We do not want
   you to delete names for which you provided no service from the DNS.


PG: "This is my company you're being nasty to"
> As his court action makes serious and unfounded allegations against
> Melbourne IT

People are invited to read these serious and unfounded allegations for
themselves at

	http://www.iinet.net.au/com.au/


PG: "My ears are closed to people who don't agree with me"
> and in particular to defend the industry-endorsed policies under
> which we operate.  

I do wish you would stop saying that.  Haven't you noticed that
the industry doesn't agree with all your policies?  The DNA forum
has certainly not endorsed the deletion of domains names on
Monday.  We did not endorse any charges for domains registered
prior to November 1.  We were not even asked if your fee structure
was reasonable.

What exactly do you feel was "industry-endorsed" and where are
the minutes/statements/evidence of this? Who was present at the
meeting?

MM