I have acted for city councils.  The situation should be in any case more open than closed.  Not the reverse as you suggest.  Further those other organisations are subject to FOI.  Freedom of Information provisions.  auDA has not adopted this because it does not have to at law.  And just because an organisation does not have to at law does not mean it should not.

Further David there is a situation where an interested party has been denied access to contribute to policy formation against auda's own policy and purpose.  A complaint has been filed with the CEO.  He has refused to refer it to the Board.  The Board has and will be fully notified.  The press is not allowed to attend.  The transcript is apparently not being made public.  The minutes do not even address the content of submissions.  The budget and accounts are vague.  The CEO is not forthcoming.  The dns list is not published to record debate.

Excuse me but this is unacceptable.