Michael Malone wrote:
> If competition is the appropriate response, then a
> recommendation of this should be presented to Melbourne IT. Even then,
> M-IT will need to be satisfied that the framework is workable.

This sounds rather as if Melbourne IT is seen by ADNA (or at least by
Michael Malone) as having some sort of veto power over such recommendations.
While one can of course hope for a degree of altruism, given such a veto
power Melbourne IT would have to be rather silly to permit any framework
that disadvantaged Melbourne IT.

Perhaps someone ccould clarify for me what authority Melbourne IT obtained
from Robert Elz? The document I recall reading about it has gone from
Melbourne IT's website (or been moved; anyway I can't find it).

My understanding was that Melbourne IT obtained a limited and non-exclusive
right to operate in the .COM.AU namespace; I was not under the impression
that they had actually become the .COM.AU delegate.

In a competitive arena, for one of the competitors to be the domain delegate
would seem on the face of it to be completely inappropriate.

If Melbourne IT is not the domain delegate, then their input should be
advisory only although obviously very valuable in that context and certainly
to be sought.

Could you clarify where this veto power you imply comes from? Or have I
misread your words?

Regards, K.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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