> Thanks for this clarification. I was actually looking for somedocument or
> other thing detailing the nature of the delegation. There are no other
> domains that I know of where there is a "real" delegate and a kind of "sub
> delegate" in the same domain like this.

Actually, its that way for every one of the 2LD's.  We have been
delegated authority by the delegated authority of .AU.


> For myself, personally, I am most uncomfortable with a situation
> where a DNA in a commercially competitive domain is the actual
> delegate for the domain.

I'd go a little further than this even, and remove the words 
"commercially competitive".  To be fair, the current DA's
have shown no signs of corruption with respect to setting
of policy (I hope!).  However, this is only enforced by
public opinion.  There is nothing really stopping Geoff
Huston from opening up EDU.AU to (say) business colleges,
training centres, then onto institutes that offer courses,
and finally, any company that sometimes trains people.

There is also no requirement that myself, Robert and Geoff
continue to do our tasks for free.

I'd rather see the policy held by the top level body.  When
I want to make a change to my policy, I submit it up to the
top level body, which reviews the change, includes it,
and makes it available to the public in some repository of
such documents.


> We have a right to say this, Michael. You have a right to disagree. It would
> be nice if you were to address our criticisms rather than simply reject
> them.

Turn about is fair play?  This is exactly the same feeling
I have with ISOC.  I have a right to disagree with your comments,
and to ask you to suggest positive change.  Your current policy
is "ADNA is fundamentally flawed as a top-level policy body"
(from your recent posting to iamems-announce).  It would be nice
if you were to work -with- us to make ADNA a less flawed body
rather than trot off and create your own.

The problems you are presenting are the very ones that started
this entire process, and eventually led to ADNA.  I know you've
only come in recently, but there are fundamental problems with
having the DA's as direct policy making representatives on a top 
level body.


> Do you, for example, see where my unease at the situation you describe
> is coming from? What factors do you think mitigate the circumstances?

The major, principle, overriding factor is that the current
members of ADNA wish to work with ISOC in order to make ADNA
into -the- top level body.  We've been down this track before
Karl.  Nobody wants to do it again.

MM

(Must remember to include this sig)

ISOC-AU is fundamentally flawed as an Australian representative
body. 80% of membership fees are sent to the US.  Policy is
set by an International body, in which Australians are a minority,
and the right to make public statements is limited.