George, I think you are confusing the meaning of the term "addressing"
  in legislature with the concept of IP addressing.  They are different
  things.  ADNA does not have anything to do with IP addressing.  

So can you explain what the SMA mean, and this reference to "addressing" means,
in this context Luke? If it means "names" then it should refer to "names"
If it means some legalisting concept of address which is not an IP address
then by god, its obfuscatory. I am unable to understand why its in this
document unless its internet related, and I am unable to understand why the
SMA has a role in defining it if its not a technical matter similar to
spectrum management, and given the past history of FUD over "the IPv4 address
space is running out" my suspicions that this relates to IP addresses is
not abated yet...
  
  > Whilst the SMA has the power, it has NOT shown any intent to do such an
  > appointment, and this would be a retrograde act in my opinion. I would
  > expect vigorous opposition to this move to come from several quarters.
  
  The bodies that will make up the SMA have indicated (here I paraphrase,
  and welcome comments from those from Austel) that their preference is
  for the industry to develop this body itself.  They have displayed 
  interest, and have indeed been part of the restructuring process since the
  beginning.  

I find the continual reference to "the industry" very depressing. The internet
is not "an industry" although there are those who seek to make it so. The
internet is a NETWORK. Some parts are sold, some parts are run not for profit,
some parts are research. This is not a meaningless distinction, because it
lies at the heart of the issue I have with commercialization of all levels
of activity relating to the network. I do not believe commercial imperatives
should dictate policy at this level, and I do not believe continual reference
to "the industry" is appropriate in discussing matters of public policy. The
choice of sub-domains and policy issues surrounding them are not industry
matters, but public interest matters. 


In short, defining the role of ADNA by reference to industry bodies and
the governmental agencies charged with oversight of industry bodies is not
(in my view) appropriate. I am therefore not that impressed that some bodies
in the federal process agree you are doing a good job of "regulating the
industry" because ITS NOT AN INDUSTRY MATTER.

  Perhaps you could elaborate further on where you perceive this weekness,
  and how it could be corrected?  I believe the intent with respect to
  the domains which do not sustain as much traffic (such as gov.au, edu.au, 
  asn.au) is to enable them to retain their current status (i.e. not being
  charged for, being run by people appointed to the task) with an "if it
  isn't broken, don't fix it" philosophy, and indeed allow new domains to
  be created with similar criteria.

If the intent is to permit new domains along non-commercial lines to be
created and maintained, then the document needs more explicit mention of
the criteria which relate to non-profit domains. In particular the conditions
of levy will simply not be appropriate, nor might the requirement for financial
bond posting and other controls. If anything, there should be an explicit
requirement for public-interest domains to be funded in infrastructure terms
from the levy on more commercial domains such as com.au.

The document requires a preamble much as the MoU has to define the public
interest goals and to declare the basis upon which the ADNA intends to address
them, and ensure domains are run to the public interest, and not soley
as a matter of revenue or profit for any agency.
  
The document needs to cross reference to appropriate other documents in
wider contexts. It might need to reference to the definitions of internet
recently passed in the US federal domain for instance. It might want to
cross reference to the appropriate trademark and related bodies and their
intent to respect the process at hand (one of the big wins with the IAHC
is the involvement from day #1 of bodies such as WIPO).

It certainly wants to demonstrate an understanding of the wider issues of
DNS and show some involvement in the current international processes. I am
interested to know who apart from Geoff Huston has had any involvement in
wider DNS matters? Has Intiaa or any other participant any role in the
regional Internet bodies and processes? Have you canvassed any similar issues
in other countries? Sure, we expect to own and run .AU and in the final
analysis its a matter for Australia only, but equally, we're not THAT different
to other countries, and I'd like to know whats being proposed here is
meeting current best practice worldwide.
 
  This document is indeed full of excellent recommendations, and is to
  a degree what current proposals in Australia have been based on.  Most
  of its recommendations are included, with some tightening of the areas 
  it remains vague on.  
  
I can't say I see this. I need to go and re-read both but I am more struck
by the differences than the similarities.


  I'm not sure what you mean by convergence here, but most of the
  DNA's for the above domains you list have been aware if not participating
  in the restructuring process since its inception.  It is unfortunate
  that some of them in particular	are currently restricted in this
  participation.

I look forward to that problems resolution. I would appreciate clearer
indication that the DNA for csiro.au edu.au oz.au asn.au net.au gov.au
have acceptance of the ADNA proposals and see adequate representation for
their sector of the internet in the management body proposed. To date, most
of the acceptance seems to come from Intiaa and other "industry" bodies. I 
don't see the wider community support.
  
  There is provision in the structure for appopriate bodies to apply and be
  accepted for membership.  

Yes, but this begs the question who is capable of meeting the criteria and
what it does to substantive control of the .AU space in the meantime.

Speaking for myself as always,

	-George