Kim Davies wrote:

> You don't have to be a member of ADNA to submit your ideas (unless I'm
> wrong - but hey, isn't that what we're all doing now on this list?)

Posting on this list merely airs your ideas -- ADNA is free
to ignore that, as had happened on this list in the past
with suggestions concerning ADNA's formation.

My understanding is that ADNA has no formal submission process
beyond being a member and placing an item on a forthcoming meeting
agenda.

> From where I've been looking, this discussion process has been going on
> for over a year. There appeared to be rough concensus on the proposals
> until only a few days before the formation of ADNA, quite some time after
> the inaugural meeting of ADNA was called. Much of this criticism of ADNA
> has come in after the fact.

From my perspective, off-list negotiations with INTIAA representatives
were in progress to *develop* such a "rough concensus" when ADNA was
somewhat unexpectedly formed.

Since the formation of ADNA was a public event, those groups then
posted to the list to publically announce their position.

> Sure, the ADNA concept may be far from perfect. What strikes me is that
> those arguing this point aren't actually putting forward suggestions.

Didn't Karl's message just make three suggestions the last few dot
points?

  1. Become less commercially focused.

  2. Alter its structure to allow wider community representation.

  3. Wait until it has the general support of the Australian Internet
     community before laying claim to adopting the control of .AU.

Cheers,
glen

-- 
glen.turner§itd.adelaide.edu.au     Network Support Specialist
Tel: (08) 8303 3936            Information Technology Division
Fax: (08) 8303 4400             University of Adelaide SA 5005
...- -.- ..... --. -.. -   http://www.adelaide.edu.au/~gturner
There are two major products that came out of Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX.  This is no coincidence.