Are you saying that the board did not resolve to implement or follow the 
plan of action? Did they just agree on the plan itself?

> Cate,
> 
> The Board of auDA was and is fully informed. At a board meeting earlier
> this year or late last year a plan of action in respect to the
> re-delegation was agreed by the board. It was not a resolution of the
> board as such is not necessary. It is however quite correct to say that
> the Board agreed to the plan and therefore supports it. If you are
> suggesting that this matter has been undertaken by the executive
> without the approval of the board then you are wrong. If you are
> suggesting something else then I am missing your point.
> 
> As for the absence of documentation, as I have already explained, the
> documents will be posted on the site as soon as I return to Australia.
> It would have been and still is inappropriate to post the documents
> until receipt of them has been received form IANA. They are, after all
> addressed to IANA and I have no wish to pre-empt anything by posting
> them on our web site until I know that they have been viewed by the
> recipient.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris Disspain
> CEO - auDA
> ceo§auda.org.au
> +61-3-9226-9495
> www.auda.org.au
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cate Coorey [mailto:catecoorey§bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2001 13:15
> To: dns§waia.asn.au
> Subject: [DNS] re-delegation of .au
> 
> Greg Watson said
>>Cate,
>>The auDA board fully supports the process that is being undertaken to
>>effect the transfer of delegation for .au.
> 
> Generally, as I understand corporate rules such a comment would require
> some evidence that the board has met, discussed and passed a resolution
> of some sort. Do you mean to say "All members of the auDA board,
> representing the various stake holder groups have been polled on the
> process being undertaken and have voted to support it."
> I am beginning to suspect not, such a pity as all the good work done by
> auDA amounts to a hill of beans ( IMHO ) if this final process is not
> undertaken with integrity, transparency and accountability. Surly the
> appropriateness of any re-delegation would hinge on auDA's ability to
> give confidence to the au Internet community that
> it is able to "do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job". The
> confusion (in my mind) re the process being followed is not aided by
> absence of any information on the auDA web site. Having to rely on
> media clips seems odd, not posting information until you have
> confirmation the IANA has received the request lacks credibility since
> auDA has apparently (according to the press) met with ICANN re the
> issue.
> 
>>  In view of this it is our intention to proceed with the redelegation
>>  as
>> outlined by Chris.
> 
> Chris has done nothing to outline any process. He said a "formal
> process was being followed" then declined outline it until he has had a
> chance (oops, a second chance) to present it to the media.
> 
> Disappointed, but will be delighted to be proven wrong.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Cate Coorey
> 
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum
> without express permission of the author. 372 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
> dns) Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.
> 
> 
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum
> without express permission of the author. 368 subscribers. 
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
> dns) Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.


-- 
m§rk.net * po box 796 sandy bay 7006 australia * gsm +61 417 300 253