At 08:24 AM 28/06/97 +0800, Michael Malone wrote:
>Onwards.

Yes! 

>if it wishes to obtain credibility.  You need to offer
>specific suggestions for change.  However, it may be that

I'd prefer "retain" to "obtain". We've seen too many concurring voices to
allow the charges of irelevance and non-credibility to pass. But, as you
say, onwards!

Michael, this is the best message I 've seen in weeks on this issue. This is
not a comment on the "solutions" you offer, it's a comment on the fact that
you are starting to debate one of the big issues we have -
representativeness. The problem runs deeper than just .EDU.AU, but still
your suggestions mark a turnaround in the ADNA executive that ISOC-AU is
glad to see.

We aren't equipped for instant evaluation of new ideas (gasp! goes against
the tradition a bit!) but the main thing is that the door to change has just
opened a chink.

Thank you and well done for this beginning.

Regards, K.

PS: My *personal* general comment on your solutions is that they are kludges
to mollify specific entities. A solution that provided for the needs of
those entities without diminishing the role of others would be better. On
the other hand, what is effective consensus but a series of interlocking
kludges? Let the debate continue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer: kauer§pcug.org.au                    +61-6-2494627 (bh)
           http://www.pcug.org.au/~kauer/       +61-6-2486607 (ah)

Join the Internet Society of Australia! http://www.isoc-au.org.au