Mark Hughes wrote:
> Since there is a time element to both fine and high level issues,
> it is logical that they be worked on in parallel, rather than in series.
> An attitude of 'why worry about the fine details when the high level stuff
> hasn't been agreed' is crazy - it just extends the time frame of the
> total process.

Except the the high-level stuff has been *abandoned* by ADNA for over 
three months, despite ISOC-AU's willingness to carry on with it.

Re pr.au: I was just writing a letter about the process by which this
is being pushed by ADNA board fiat, against the expressed wishes of the
trademark community.  I'll send it separately.

> Trialling a new structure on a new SLD actually has some advantages.
> * It would prove the use of the SRS software
> * It would prove the useability of a method of licensing multiple
> registrars
(...)

Sounds good Mark, except that the ADNA timetable for "Introduction of 
pr.au and Multiple Commercial Registrars" suggests the opposite:

 * 1 June pr.au operations commence (potentially with initially single DNA)
                                                                ^^^^^^ 
 * 6 July (nominally) Receive SRS software, implemented and tested by
   vendor. Commence testing with existing DNAs.

Kate Lance