At 12:44 AM 4/1/98 -0000, Michael Malone wrote:
...
>Peter Gerrand pushes the same line as NSI in the US; that the
>way to achieve competition is to create new domains, such
>as pr.au.  

Oh dear! May I say to the mailing list that 
(1) this is the umpteenth time that MM has quoted my views unfairly. PLEASE
if you ever again see Michael Malone quoting Peter Gerrand - treat it
sceptically. 

(2) I do not and have not "pushed the same line as NSI in the US", nor ever
said that "the way", meaning the only way, to achieve competition is to
create new domains. I support both external and internal competition in
registering domains, in both gTLDs and SLDs under .au  

(3) unlike NSI, I have actively participated in the process of DNS industry
self-regulation, not just since Melbourne IT took over the DNA role for
com.au in October 1996, but for several months before that event, to ensure
that we have always had good industry support for our com.au policies.

(4) my prime motivation for supporting additional SLDs under .au is to
ensure that Australia has a framework of .au SLDS that meets the legitimate
needs of end users, particularly where their needs are excluded by the
policies for the current domains (such as com.au). I therefore have
successively supported proposals for biz.au (from MM), pr.au and also the
less popular tm.au.
I continue to argue against those who want to water down com.au into a
surrogate .com, by eliminating the com.au eligibility criteria. Far better
to create additional SLDs with freer naming policies (such as ADNA's
proposed pr.au) to meet those needs.

(5) ever since MM told the ADNA Board in August 1997 that he would not
allow the SLD he personally administers, asn.au, to come under ADNA's
proposals for introduction of competition in commercial domains, Melbourne
IT has been the only DNA within .au to collaborate in ADNA's open process
for the introduction of greater competition in the .au DNS. This includes
competition within com.au (and all other commercial SLDs within .au) as
well as creation of additional SLDs to meet reasonable end-user needs.

This is not to say that I support all of ADNA's policies or decisions to
date. 
I particularly think that the others present at ADNA's January Board
meeting made a grave mistake in not responding positively to the November
1997 public consultation process on the needs of trademark holders for SLDs
within .au, by refusing to support either the majority vote from those
meetings (that the eligibility criteria for com.au be broadened to accept
Australian trade mark registration as an alternative to the RBN or ARBN etc
criteria) or the minority vote (that alternatively tm.au be created with
this specific eligibility criterion). I give notice that I shall raise
these proposals again at the next ADNA Board meeting. 

However I am prepared to keep working within ADNA to achieve a better .au
framework with greater competition, provided that the process for reaching
that new framework remains open and fair, and that ADNA gives as much
attention to the demand-side in creating that framework as it does to the
supply-side. 

I have also said several times at ADNA meetings, and at pre-ADNA DNS
forums, that Melbourne IT will co-operate in the introduction of
competition within com.au provided that it is not disadvantaged by
inequitable treatment - ie competition in com.au must happen at the same
time as competition is introduced in all the commercial SLDs in .au, and
Melbourne IT must have the same rights as other registrars to support
multiple SLDs.

Finally, I also would welcome NOIE acting as a facilitator to bring the
currently alienated parties into the self-regulatory DNS process, whether
that is via ADNA or a new body more acceptable to all Australian
stake-holders in the Internet; such a body is needed to act as the
industry-created and government regulator-recognised Manager of Internet
Naming and Addressing in this country.   

Peter Gerrand
Melbourne IT