>Opportunity 1: ISOC-AU tried to help proto-ADNA because we appreciated
>the hard work that had gone into it from many disinterested people, and
>rather than just discard that work we tried to improve the basic
>principles, to set up a bridge between the existing system and the
>future one.  You stopped co-operating on this and threw away a chance
>of gaining the confidence of a large part of the community.

I've heard this one too many times now.  ADNA did not stop talking to
ISOC-AU.  I was talking to Geoff Huston in January.  Peter Gerrand was
talking to Kate Lance subsequent to this.  At no time has even three months
passed between talks, let alone five months.  ADNA does not have the right
to stop talking to people (disregarding the sometimes necessary tradeoff's
involved in dealing with those who are not constructive) - it is intended
as a representative body, and the essence of representation is
communicating with the constituency.  It is true that these conversations
with ISOC-AU often did little to advance any negotiations, but it must be
said that part of the reason for this was that the various bodies that make
up ADNA did not feel that ISOC-AU was willing to participate in a process
of "majority rule", and that they were unwilling to accept it when most
others felt differently to them.  But these discussions have now entered a
new phase, and I suggest it does little to dwell on where we were then.  

I would instead request that we all focus on the future a bit more, and
attempt to develop a framework that does achieve all our ends, with the
necessary compromises that are attached to any situation in which many
interest groups come together.  

For what it's worth, ADNA realises that its policy of not responding to
ill-informed or ill-intentioned criticisms (far too much of these
discussions have degenerated into nothing more than mud-slinging already)
sometimes leaves some people without a clear idea of the realities of a
situation, and that lack of clarifying comment makes it harder for those
who dont have all the facts to understand what is going on.  We seem to
have come to a situation here where judgements are running thick and fast
from those who don't have all the facts, and this is disappointing because
it makes constructive developments more difficult.  I think in future most
of the people at ADNA will endeavour to answer more of everyone's
questions, but keep in mind that making perjorative attacks on people often
leaves them with little inclination to participate in discussion.


Regards,

Luke Carruthers
Acting Chair
ADNA