I would not discount the possibility that the press totally misreported the
situation, but it appeared from the article that key consideration to the
Melbourne IT funding was a *guarantee* that no competition be created in the
market until 2002.

Do you now say that:

1- the press misreported and there was no such agreement

2- there was an agreement to that effect but you consider it irrelevant
since you were not planning on allowing competition until 2002 anyway.


If the former, the paper should be asked to print a clarification to a
misleading article.

Of course the AuDA process is extensive and will take some time. Your own
documentation indicated that it will take 38 weeks from 19 July 2000 to
deliver the final report and then another 13 weeks to implement.

Is it not possible that your panel might complete their work quickly, even
before April 2001? Would any implementation be held up under your Melbourne
IT agreement until the end of that year (I think October was mentioned in
the newspaper article)? There are issues to consider, but surely one year is
excessive?

And once auDA is dependant on Melbourne IT funding is it not difficult to
remain independent and objective when considering issues which go to the
heart of its business?

You do see that a formal agreement to enshrine Melbourne IT's monopoly in
return for funding appears suspect, whether or not it had that intention.


Ari Maniatis




on 14/7/00 6:48 PM, Mark Hughes at effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
wrote:

> So that situation has not changed - the auDA-Melbourne IT agreement
> has no effect on the timing or method of the introduction of
> competition.



-------------------------->
ish group pty ltd
7 Darghan St Glebe 2037 Australia
phone +61 2 9660 1400   fax +61 2 9660 7400
email info§ish.com.au
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2  A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8