] At 10:34 PM 5/06/2001 +1000, Chris Disspain wrote:
] >It is inappropriate at this juncture to get into too much detail about the
] >process. Suffice it to say that;
] >

I think what Chris means is that a number of auDA people (including all
auDA staff) have been in Stockholm for the ICANN meeting, so it may take
a little time for them to return to Australia and give more detailed
information about this topic.  I would hope that more details would be
available early next week.

It might be more productive to discuss this issue then, when there are
some more facts on the table.

] It would appear that auDA has approached the IANA for a re-delegation 
] without having received "the nod" from the current trustee. I repeat my 
] earlier question, has this action been approved by the Board ? If so at 
] which meeting ? Why is Mr Elz apparently reticent to lend his support. I 
] suspect (in the absence of any documents) that he may not be convinced that 
] the au Internet community fully supports the activities of auDA. I think a 
] broader membership would help and lowering the membership to less that $100 
] would go along way to accomplishing this. The work of auDA has been 
] substantive, but concerns linger. The apparent lack 
] of  discussion/debate/documentation regarding this last action only 
] highlights the concerns of the suspicious who long to be fully converted to 
] the cause...

If you are keen to investigate what the Board knows and can't wait,
a reasonable place to start would be the September 2000 minutes.
Bear in mind that this was based on the Board's understanding at
that time, and one can't guarantee 100% accuracy of that (and of
course situations can change over time).

I don't know why Mr Elz has been reticent to make his position clear,
over such a long period of time.  I wish he would.
 
__________________________________________________________________________
David Keegel <david&#167;keegel.wattle.id.au>  I speak for myself, no one else.