> I am interested in who these are perceived to be at this stage. If it
> was the regional IA bodies, this would mean vesting the top-level domain
> space of australia in a body dominated by ISPs or bodies themselves dominated
> by ISPs and this is highly inappropriate. (If I mis-characterize the regional
> IA bodies, please forgive me. This is my understanding at this time and I
> welcome being set straight on that)

Seeing as how you ask :-)

WAIA and SAIA are not ISP bodies.  They have two houses,
composed of IAPs and individual members.  Votes cannot be
passed unless there is a majority vote by both halves.

The board is similarly split. Half the board is elected from
IAP members by IAP members and the other half is elected from
the individuals members by the individual members.  The
president may be from either half and is elected by popular
vote.

WAIA and SAIA (at least) attempt to assist Internet users
in their respective states.  Sure, IAP's consider themselves
to have the largest "stake", and so they are often more
active when threatened, but the organisation cannot pass
any motions that are not considered to be in the best interests
of users and IAPs.

Yes, this is a very different model to INTIAA. We predate
INTIAA and our origins are different. The users and IAPs
decided to combine to form the IA, meaning they tend to
have strong grass roots representation and support.

As for your other points though, I agree 100%.  It is important
that the ADNA have representatives of all interested parties, and
the joining fee should be set to a level that allows this.

MM