[> > auDA is a private non-profit company
> IANAL, but by my reading of the Corporations Act (2001) as auDA is not a
> proprietary company but is company limited by guarantee, then its
> technically a public company, not a private company.]

You are correct auda is a monopoly which basically has the same effect as a cartel "it monopolises".  The cartel is formed by the registries who agree to provide services under the monopoly effect of auda.
> 
> 
> 
[> > that makes money cartel style with government approval
> Actually, its 'monopoly style', rather than 'cartel style'.  auDA is a
> Regulatory Authority, and like most other Regulatory Authorities (think
> about it) its a monopoly.  The ACCC has the power to allow Regulatory
> Authorities to be monopolies.]

The effect is the same.  How about adressing the issues.  And in any case surely issues of accountability and transparency in tendering should be on the agenda.  Currently they are not.  Or Mark do you have information to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
[> > and government representation on the Board (as I understand it)
> That's not correct either.  See http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html.]

I was under the impression that a NOIE rep takes part in the board meetings.  If that is incorrect then so be it.  It does not detract from my argument for transparency and accountability.
> 
> 
> 
[> > its internal operations including expenditure should be accountable and
> open to transparent process
> auDA budget, board minutes, and audited accounts are on the auDA web site.]

What about a policy for appointment of contractors that is tender related.  counter argument is ineffective in addressing the issues I have raised.
> 
> 
> 
[> > sub-contractors should provide services for tender on the same basis that
> any government authority operates
> When auDA reviews its suppliers of services, I would hope that 'general
> competence', 'understanding of the domain name system', and 'the ability to
> get facts right before posting to a public listserver' are major selection
> criteria.]

What makes you think that auDA will even consider reviewing its list of suppliers.  You assume alot. 
> 
> 
> I'm making a list of the ten legal firms with the worst understanding of the
> domain name system combined with the worst ability to get their facts right,
> and who therefore should never be considered by auDA for the provision of
> legal services.   Hmm, so far I seem to have the same company at positions
> 1, 2, and 3 on the list.
> 
Irrelevant.