Simon Hackett wrote:
> Your statement above is, then, basically in agreement with the stance of
> ISOC-AU's directors - that initial operations start at COM.AU and work
> outward on a merit basis. So let's do exactly that.
> 
Ah, the middle ground appears in the distance!

Seems like there are at least two middle-ground areas:
i)  the initial focus of ADNA
ii) representation within ADNA

".com.au" might be a good starting point on (i) but how about broadening
it to a notion "commercial domains within .au"?  Hugh Irvine's comment
seems to suggest that .net.au might be willing to be involved in the
work on developing competition within an SLD and MelbourneIt certainly
sees .net.au as part of the competitive marketplace.  On a side note,
there has been talk of a need for .tm.au or nn.tm.au though it'd be
interesting to hear a specific proposal from Mark Hughes and others in
the business community on this.

As far as (ii) goes, I haven't been party to the iamems discussion, so
perhaps that's why I'm unaware of any specific proposals on the table. 
Seems to me that ADNA would be far more effective if it was able to
develop consensus around it's core issues of interest, which would
suggest that at bottom, it might be responsive to suggestions.  If
there's widespread understanding on (i) perhaps acceptance and
compromise on (ii) would come more easily.

I could imagine statements from ADNA, ISOC, AVCC and the other
stakeholders to the effect that:
ADNA states it's intention to initally focus on xyz and
the other stakeholders state their intention to support ADNA in that
task (if they'd rather not join).

This might allow work on the more urgent issues to press ahead with
(valuable) consensus, without being derailed by the broader but less
pressing issues of representation and .au governance.  ADNA and the
other stakeholders will be in a clearer position after ADNA has earned
it's stripes.

Leni.