At 11:14 AM 4/2/98 +0900, Simon Hackett wrote:
>...>
>Lets make this clearer:
>
>The place where the rubber meets the road is com.au. 
>
>The place where the rubber meets the road is com.au.
>
>The place where the rubber meets the road is com.au.
 
It also appear to be the place where otherwise rational beings become
mindlessly obsessive!

>...
>Peter, can you help to make that clearer to the list? Do you assert that
>Melbourne IT does have a right of veto (on letting other registrars into
>com.au) at this time, and if so, why? 
 
Simon

You are quite correct, in my view, in stating that Robert Elz as
Administrator of .au has the right to appoint additional DNAs/registrars in
com.au - and in any other of the SLDs under .au for that matter.  

However Robert has several times indicated his preference for the
Australian Internet community to develop an appropriate framework for
managing the .au DNS, including the appointment of new DNAs/Registrars. 

ADNA, for all of its shortcomings, is currently the only body that has
arisen to attempt to take on this role.

Melbourne IT as you know has participated fully in the setting up and
running of ADNA, and I even agreed to accept the fairly thankless job of
honorary Secretary when nominated by Michael Malone (during a rare period
of entente cordiale). 

As part of the ADNA process, Melbourne IT is contributing its considerable
operational experience to help Mark Hughes and his co-workers develop a
robust and reliable framework for the entry of competition. 

However within the ADNA framework we insist on treatment on equitable
terms, as I have reiterated in a recent posting to this list.  As an
Australian business, operating ethically under all the relevant
legislation, we are entitled to fair treatment, and we are not prepared to
passively accept any arbitrary regime for the introduction of internal
competition - particularly as it is not necessary to do so under Australian
competiton law. 

We are submitting voluntarily to the introduction of a higher level of
competition than is present in other industries (including the mainstream
telecommunications industry), and the quid pro quo is that we have a fair
say in the way it is done. To the extent that this means exercising a right
of veto, then yes, we will exercise that limited right of veto. 

We particularly want to ensure that the more competitive DNS framework,
that is our common goal, will be engineered so that it does not diminish
the reliability of the essential infrastructure support we currently
provide to ISPs and the Australian business community. My observation is
that all the other current DNAs have taken similar positions re their own
SLDs - and these positions are absolutely responsible ones, and not just
self-serving.
 

Peter Gerrand
Melbourne IT