K Heitman & Co wrote:
> Pardon me, I assumed if you knew you would have told your partner Vic
> so he didn't make a fool of himself in public. I'm still not
> convinced you understand why auDA is bound to publicly consult on
> changes to naming policy or transfer rights, or you would be
> directing your energies in that direction. 

Maybe you should rethink the above statement. Looking at the public 
minutes of the auDA board meeting from 12/08/2002, I found something 
very interesting:

--------------------------
* Transfer of domain name licences between registrants
PD declared his interest in relation to transfers in case of 
liquidation. The board noted correspondence from Davies Collison Cave, 
pointing out that the Interim Transfers Policy does not permit a 
transfer where a dispute is settled prior to a decision being handed 
down by the relevant authority. The board discussed the implications of 
allowing transfers pursuant to private settlement between the parties. 
There was a concern that this might facilitate a secondary market in 
domain names.

Action: Sub-committee of KH, MM, DK, JR and JL to consider the policy 
principles of transfers, and draft recommendations for consideration by 
the board.
--------------------------

So, not only was there no formal panel discussion of this specific 
matter, but there was no public consultation either. The issue was 
conveniently decided by the auDA board of the time and more specifically 
by a sub-commitee of which you were a part of.


Bennett.

refs
http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-17062002/
http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-12082002/
http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/minutes-14102002/