Please contrast the situation today and tell me if the current situation
  is deserving of the term 'debacle'. 
  
I believe aspect of it are, yes. the breach of unity from the concerned 
parties (for whatever reason) is deeply regretable. So is the divergeance
of interests post dating the meetings.

On the other hand, I entirely agree that in regard of most of your direct
customers, what happens today in connection with a new DNS application in
com.au is better than what went before.

Perhaps my rhetoric went too far. I remain convinced that substantive
sharing of DNS responsibilities for com.au will alleviate most if not all
of the issues (and probably introduce some new ones!) and I'd prefer this
outcome to many others.

  inherited.  It would appear that the fee-for-service principle is still
  ISOC-AU itself were probably the major source of delays - and not very
  long delays at that - in what was a highly expedited process. 

I agree we contributed to some delay in this matter. We're trying to address
that.

I have to say Peter, that you have not succeeded in making a reasoned case
for ANY "flagday" being neccessary. This appears to be the last major
stumbling block regarding your management of com.au.
  
  I do not share your belief, although I respect it, that "DNS is best
  left in the care and control of bodies such as ISOC/IANA as exemplified
  by the IAHC process". As a national industry, it is in our interests to
  aim to control our own destiny, and not leave it to overseas bodies. In
  any case the reality is that the relevant sections of the

I did say "such as" and should have been clearer: we need to fine LIKE bodies
who have primacy within Australia. My own belief that ISOC-AU fits the
bill will be clear. I do not regard simply passing this off to an overseas
agency as adequate, but I do want to make it clear: IANA delegated .AU
to a person in a belief they would steward it for the good of all Australia.
I believe that IANA needs to be confident any replacement process is at LEAST
as good in that stewardship as KRE has been, and that means the prime and
driving issue for top-level policy MUST be public-interest.

	not profit.
	not cost issues (but they are important)
	not ISP issues
	not government issues

	PUBLIC INTEREST issues.
	

  Telecommunications Bill 1996, about to be passed by the Federal
  Parliament, are designed to encourage our industry to regulate itself on
  matters of electronic naming and addressing - and stipulate that if we
  fail, the ACCC and ACA will be (reluctantly) forced to step in and
  enforce a solution of their own devising. 

"Industry" is a very unfortunate word for whats under discussion. Most of
the history of internet in australia has been about cooperation and not
about profit, and at the .AU level thats exactly how it should remain.
  
  The DNS Forum, initiated and convened by INTIAA and now receiving good
  support from ISOC-AU,  is the worthy attempt of the two major national
  Internet associations together with the current Australian DNAs, some of
  the regional Internet associations, and other interested bodies and
  individuals, to develop a fair and workable self-regulatory framework.
  ADNA is important because it is the intended corporate vehicle to
  provide such industry self-regulation, including the use of appropriate
  public consultation processes, in the area of domain name policies and
  administration.

I am very concerned that (a) this process is being rushed and (b) that
confusion exists about the role of a proposed ADNA and the issues it has
to confront. I am not satisfied that the proposals I have seen ensure
sufficient separation of those charged with oversight and those who seek
to make a profit and provide service on that basis. I am also somewhat
bemused by some phrases which suggest the ADNA draftees do not understand
the difference between an internet address, and address allocation issues
and internet names and the name to address mapping function. These are
utterly different. 
  

  Like Skeeve Stevens, I hope there will be a good turn-up on 4 April; but
  the key agenda item must be to progress the ADNA concept.  Without
  progress on ADNA, it will be a long time before you will see any
  competitors to com.au enter the market. Surely that thought alone
  provides enough incentive for some of the most vocal critics to
  concentrate on the main agenda item!

If ADNA is soley concerned with com.au I have no problem. If it seeks to
re-define the management and structures in place to guide .AU then I have
fears we are proceeding in the wrong way. I believe the IAHC process and
documents associated with it form a better basis for structuring something
of lasting benefit to the wider community.
  
  And George I hope you can be there as well.
  
I wish I could be there, but personal circumstances do not permit. I am
more than happy Pauline represents a wider view of ISOC-AU members and
I have had my chance to represent this view to her. 

Again, I stress this is a personal perspective.

  With good wishes

And the same back! 

	cheers
			-George
--
George Michaelson         |  connect.com.au pty/ltd
Email: ggm§connect.com.au |  c/o AAPT,
Phone: +61 7 3834 9976    |  level 8, the Riverside Centre,
  Fax: +61 7 3834 9908    |  123 Eagle St, Brisbane QLD 4000