> My own impression is that you are both correct, because you are applying
> different criteria - Luke was referring to an informal conversation he had
> had with Geoff to re-open the dialogue, whereas you were expecting
> re-opening of the formal dialogue with yourself, which clearly didn't happen.

No, I was referring to Action item 20 from the January 28 Board minutes:
Action A20: It was agreed the Chairman would send a letter of
            invitation to ISOC-AU to join ADNA.

-- this didn't happen, so saying that: 

A20     Luke Carruthers reported he had begun communications with ISOC-AU 
        concerning participating in ADNA.

-- as the action on A20 is misleading, especially as I believe it
refers to phone calls that took place -before- the January 28 Board
meeting anyway.  It might be a different Action, but it's *not* A20.

Anyway, it's not worth the hassle to argue.  I merely want it perfectly
clear that the 4-month hiatus in communication was ADNA's doing and was
against the wishes of ISOC-AU.

> I suggest that we all move on from the unhappy past, and put this behind 
> us. Hopefully NOIE will accept ADNA's recent request for help, and will act 
> as midwife to the birth of a restructured and improved ADNA (...)

Agreed.

Kate Lance