] At 11:38 29/6/97, David Keegel wrote:
] >
] >I would tend to agree with Simon -- let's just start with com.au.
] >
] >But I would also suggest that in fairness to the DNA of com.au, we
] >look a little beyond the short term and start to pencil in some sort
] >of "in principle" suggestion that, once com.au has been `fixed' and
] >it has been demonstrated that the solution is working (initially),
] >we then also turn to net.au and decide whether that is a commercial
] >domain (which I think it is mostly now) and if so negotiate with
] >stakeholders (especially the owner and the operator of net.au) to
] >seek to implement the solution (or a variant of it) in net.au also.

] >As people have been pointing out "rough consensus and running code"
] >is a cornerstone for change in many Internet processes such IETF.
] >I think it would be quite reasonable for the owner of net.au to want
] >to see both before agreeing to actual (as opposed to "in principle")
] >changes in net.au.
] >
] >In this case "running code" translates to seeing processes that work.
] >
] >And I think we will find if ADNA sets out a timetable something like
] >        phase 1:  fix com.au problem
] >        phase 2:  generalise to other commercial au domains.
] >        phase 3:  new *.au domains, overall au, legal stuff, etc
] >        phase 4:  all things to all australians (ie: ADNA's Objects)
] >then we will see a "rough consensus" emerge from that.
] >
] >I'm looking at phase 1 and 2 being fairly short term, perhaps (at a
] >wild guess) three months and six months from now respectively.
] 
] Sigh...  When will it sink in?  It seems as though every time we get agreement
] that ADNA should initially concentrate on com.au (which *everyone* agrees
] needs work), and demonstrate that it can do the job, someone pipes up and
] says "and let's put all the other Australian domains into the timetable.  This
] is the source of disagreement!

I'm suggesting that ADNA put com.au on the front burner, net.au on the
middle burner and everything else in *.au on the back burner.  Of course
I have *no* power to speak for ADNA -- I'm not a member or even a member
of a member of ADNA.  (But I am a member of ISOC-AU, and proud of it.)
 
Specifically, I would suggest that ADNA not discuss any details regarding
net.au until there is a clear consensus on ADNA's proposed solution for
com.au (which I expect would be months away).

My reason for putting net.au somewhere other than the "let's not worry
about that yet" back burner, is that Melbourne IT probably views net.au
as a competitor to com.au.  As such, M.IT may think it is unfair for
them to voluntarily submit to something, without any idea of whether
their main `competitor' is also prepared to submit to it, *ever*.

My reason for not putting net.au on the front burner is that I can't
see the owner or operator of net.au writing a blank cheque to ADNA
to implement something which is currently unknown and will be
untested at the time when it is to be implemented.  Especially if
they have no direct input into the process.

It makes much more sense for net.au to "wait and see" how things go
with com.au before making a commitment to the process.  My wild guess
was to allow three months after com.au has been "fixed" for this
monitoring, (and if the outcome is seen as positive) then negotiation
between ADNA, Hugh Irvine and connect.com.au, (and if relevant stake-
holders are in agreement) then for implementation.

] ADNA cannot simply 'take' these domains - it must be done with
] the cooperation and involvement of the current administrators.

Absolutely.  (Regardless of what ADNA's Objects might say.)-:
ADNA should not take this cooperation for granted, and should not
assume silence means consent.
 
] Set modest goals, achieve them and the rest will follow.

Agreed. 
__________________________________________________________________________
David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  http://www.cyber.com.au/  +61 3 9642-5997
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management