>ADNA, however, did not receive support from all sections of the internet

Nor has auDA.

>community;  ADNA's constitution did not allow for individuals or companies
>to join as members - only associations.  This drawback made it difficult to

Strangely ADNA's ACN and auDA's ACN are one and the same.  So obviously 
changing the M&A was easy enough.  So the truth of what really happens is 
again subverted in the creation of a new history.

>get the required level of support from across the community.  Without


Well ADNA constructed almost identical to the IAHC was never going to get 
that.  Funny how IAHC had the EXACT same problems.

>complete support from the start, and with no resources, ADNA could not
>achieve enough to generate more support.  Dedicated historians can consult
>ADNA information at http://www.auda.org.au/archive/adna/
>
>In 1998, ADNA decided that it could not progress, and on 8 May 1998 ADNA
>wrote to Dr Paul Twomey at the Australian Federal Government's National

Which was just after the International Forum on the White Paper was 
announced as the Asiapac regional conference was held in August 1998.  It 
was at that time the IAHC realized it wasn't going to succeed and it fell 
to pieces, funny how ADNA fell with it.

IAHC backers were totally opposed to the views expressed from my side of 
the floor.  Strangely I've already quoted Paul in a previous message and as 
I said, it's all on video tape.

>NOIE then became actively involved in facilitating the process, established

NOIE was involved prior to this.

I wrote to the NOIE before the closing date for submissions on the GREEN 
PAPER.  NOIE and ADNA people paniced that they were missing out and wrote 
to the Presidents office requesting a 90 day extension three days before 
the closing date.

*I* was the only Australian submission made to the GREEN PAPER.  This was 
probably why the Australian ADNA delegation to the IFWP was so anal the 
whole way through.  Gosh i=I even had the Japanese Ambassador ask me if I 
wanted him to try and negotiate a peace between all the Australian 
Delegates.  I told him "No, it's our custom to ignore and be rude to each 
other, you have to understand Australians with opposing views."  At the 
time I was in a group of delegates whom I'm still in contact with today 
from several Asianpac countries.

Oh and YES, NSI (Network Solutions) did PAY for my airfare to the 
conference, however Suzanne and I struggled to fund the accommodation and 
other costs.

However, even though I was really pleased to meet the then great people 
from NSI who I'd debated with and against for many years, I did not toe 
their line and they did not ask me to.  Some issues I agreed with, others I 
strongly objected to.

>a working group that led to the development of the existing auDA
>constitution, and the creation of auDA on 19 April 1999, replacing ADNA.

Again at the same time ICANN was funded and sprung into action.  In 
February 1999 ICANN pleaded with the public to fund it or it would have to 
cease.  It got funding and established it's core model.  auDA had been 
watching the creation of  ICANN in the same way it had watched and followed 
IAHC.  Check the dates, watch the motivations, auDA is almost always 6 
months behind ICANN on most issues.

>auDA was still faced with the task that had confronted ADNA - i.e.
>generating broad community support, and enabling policy development by the
>Australian internet community.

As I said, it doesn't have industry support.  It certainly doesn't have 
community support, because there is no means for the community to ELECT 
representatives.  The Community isn't interested in individual's personal 
goals, it's interested in betterment for the community.

All auDA has to do is open an avenue for the COMMUNITY of Australia to 
ELECT candidates to the BOARD and the biggest problem is solved.

It's them up to people who are interested to promote themselves to the 
community to gain support.  Bit like a US Presidential Campaign.  No 
support, no votes, no election.

auDA is kidding itself and the public presently.


>auDA was helped by a constitution that enabled all interested parties to 
>become members of auDA, and significant milestones were:

The Public should NOT need to become MEMBERS.  They should not be asked to 
PAY money for what is suppose to be a national freedom.

>* endorsement of auDA at the end of 2000 by the Australian government as the
>appropriate body to administer the .au namespace

Which after reading, auDA doesn't meet all the criteria, but hey - lets 
re-write history and after all, it's just a matter of perception.

And to think I've been involved in DNS since 1993 and host administration 
since 1991.

<sigh>