This is my own personal view. Innacuracies and bias are my own fault.

I'd like to thank Stephen, for calling the meeting and providing
the facilities and his own (robust!) input. 

I missed some of the input from Clive Florey and Michael Malone because
of audio breakup and innattention on my part (!) for which I'm really
sorry. I hope others pike up with their take on things as well.

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: ggm§dstc.edu.au    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au

---------------------------------------------------------------

Attendees 	(* == going to Singapore)
=========

	Melbourne	  Richard Cousins
		 	* Robert Elz 
			* Clive Florey
			* Kate Lance
			* Leni Mayo 

	Sydney		  Stephen Thompson
			* Paul Twomey

	Perth		  Michael Malone

	Brisbane	  George Michaelson
			* Paul Wilson

Agenda
======
	1) issues of concern for .AU people
		US location: 501(c) and 
		US laws  and implication for operation esp. appeals processes
	2) issues relating to the deadline
	3) funding
	4) Australian representation on bodies in IANA
	5) US incorperation issues
	6) due process for input by bodies/corporates eg ASX


1) Issues of concern in .AU context

	The discussion centered on two issues. Dispute Resolution, and
	access to appropriate law, and the implications of US incorporation.

	[ST] noted extreme concerns that Australian businesses would find
	operating under US law intolerable for settlement of dispute relating
	to onshore operation.

	US incorperation seems to mean US laws. concern about appellate
	and legal process needing to recognize AU law.

	[LM] noted WIPO process using jurisdiction of registry,claimant,
	holder, etc to determine locale. in prior work by gTLD/CORE.

	Suggestion that IANA be asked to note the WIPO process and include
	an explicit arbitration/appeals process in articles.

	[PT] noted the Administrative Appeals Tribunal work in this
	area, and suggested that a review of 4-5 common elements in different
	countries would converge on a suitable model, which should be included.

	[RC] separate US incorporation under 501(c) from 
	jurisdiction of application in any appeal proces.

	 ie Accept US incorporation for now. 
	    Demand internationally acceptable processes for operation.

2) The September 30 deadline.
 
	Its going to happen. we need to look to post-incorperation changes
	for major alteration.

	Need to ensure structure permits change.

	Some feeling the proposals are broadly right. [PT] expressed concern
	regarding requirement for explicit government input and participation
	eg via countrycode/policy body, lack of appeals process, and lack of
	recognition of ITU and other bodies in process.


3) Funding.

        We discussed funding. It was clear US-only funding was not
        an appropriate model. Some initial seed funding will be required
        which could come from a range of sources worldwide.

        The $50m infrastructure fund was discussed, in the context of
        including non-US contributions.

        Some aspects of IANAs work include activities we don't want to
        incur charges, in the context of any user-pays operational requirement.

4) Australian participation/Representation in process.

	We want .AU reps. On merit, to defuse regional politics about where
	AU is coming from. We have good arguments for having skills etc.

	Note that a 4th supporting org. is likely: policy from CCtld government
	and ITU type bodies. Strong argument for input there.


5) US incorporation Issues

	(discussed under 1 in the main.) some notice that financial dependency
	on US sources predicates US 'ownership' of policy outcomes which has
	to be avoided.

	Suggestion that like for operational legal process, separate 501(c)
	incorporation from final model of financial structure, and ensure
	global input.

6) Process for input by bodies/corporates eg ASX

	Need NOIE to facilitate onshore .AU governance to achieve a body
	which is representative.

	Need to include bodies like ASX and Consumers Assoc. who are genuinely
	representative of real users, not providers (poacher-gamekeeper prob.)

	ASX to provide conferencing for meetings? useful.

	Need to ensure there is a way for concerns to be voiced.


[PT] conference call attendees. Ensure some common purpose at Singapore meeting

[general] thanks to ASX for providing facilities. This is good. We need to
	  talk more.