Dear Michael and Geoff,

>>But to top if off, you now wish to appoint a mate to the
>>position of CEO.  Are you lot for real?

I think that's a little unfair. Greg, the Chair of the .au Working Group,
was simply asking whether there would be anyone we knew. This is not an
uncommon thing to do. I do not think that restricts it to just 'mates'. The
industry is not large and so I would have thought that all Working Group
members, plus any contacts they have outside, would or might know of
someone that might or might not be interested in applying for the position.

I do not disagree about the need to publicise the position. It would be
unprofessional and unwise not to do so, but I think it's a tad unfair that
you suggest using professional networks, only means putting forth mates. I
have dozens of professional contacts in this industry, but few I would
classify as my mates. What about you?

>Evidently not. Spam, last minutes membership machinations, 
>mateship appointments, we appear to be copping the lot.

I'd like to address this point as well. Geoff, I personally emailed you to
apologise on behalf of the Working Group. You know as well as every other
person that has complained to us, that we did not have anything to do with
Larry Bloch's spam. It was not endorsed or supported by the Working Group.
It greatly worried us and we spent a great deal of time and resources,
personally emailing and contacting everyone that contacted us to try to
correct the mis-assumption. It's very unfair for you to imply that
connection when you know that the Working Group did not endorse Larry
Bloch's actions.

With regards to the timeframe for the DNS debate, I too, am disappointed.
It has made our job very very difficult. All Working Group members have
contributed hours and hours and hours of work to this process. NOIE are
well aware of the Working Group's concerns about the timeframe, however,
the Working Group did not set the timeframe, we were required to work
within it.

Part of my responsibility on the Working Group was to submit a report to
NOIE on our public consultation process. I would be happy to engage further
with you on this point as I feel very strongly about it. I am 100%
confident that the Working Group did everything within its resources to try
and reach everyone that would have a part in this debate or might have
something to say, or might want to contribute. 

The Working Group had no money, no resources (bar people's time) and very
little time. It would be impossible to reach everyone on a personal level,
connect with them, and develop consensus. I wish we could have done that.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the need to reach consensus. That seems
to be a difficult thing to achieve in this industry, if not impossible, on
the DNS matter. All Working Group members, have to some extent, had to make
compromises, and that has been a difficult task, personally and
professionally.

The most difficult has been the classes of membership. What happened within
the Working Group around the debate of membership, was disappointing, but
remember, I collated all public comments. I have a pretty damn good idea of
what the public thought on this topic (excluding the votes by Working Group
members).

The split between those in favour of single and those in favour of
multiple, was too close for either to be called unanimous endorsement. The
only way then, was to try a compromise. The drafting committee of the
Working Group, did attempt a compromise Constitution, but the fact that we
left out a class for representative associations (and I would not say
Melbourne IT fits into this class), meant that an amendment was put forth
at the last minute. The advantage of a class for rep associations is that
bods like CSIRO or the education network, have a much better place to sit,
than either demand or supply classes. 

I'd be interested to take these matters up in further detail should anyone
feel the need. 

With best regards,
Sandra Davey


.au Working Group on Australian Domain Names
Email: sldavey§fl.asn.au
Web: http://www.auda.org/