>One lesson that I would draw from the so-called "old dns list" is
>that if you don't focus on the main game in a mailing list, you will
>not get anything done in that list.

[snip]

>If everybody could ask themselves "Does this message I am composing
>help progress towards competition in com.au?" before sending each
>and every message to this list, I would be a very happy man indeed.
>(Well, I can dream, can't I?)

Is that the "main game"? I subscribed (briefly) to the "old" DNS mailing
list but quickly jumped off as the sample I saw was little more than a
bunch of rabid comments bitching about one thing or another. I applaud this
attempt at a "new" start and hope that we are able to use it as a vehicle
to progress.

The issues are surely wider than "let's get com.au". This myopic approach,
along with continued slagging off at anyone who doesn't agree with your
views or parties you have a gripe with seem to be the reasons why previous
attempts to examine the .au DNS stagnated into an unproductive melee.

How should the .au DNS be governed? What is an appropriate body to do it?
How should it be resourced/funded? Who should set the rules? What should
the rules be? What is the process for setting/evolving rules? What is an
appropriate appeals/dispute resolution mechanism? How do we fund the
necessary infrastructure and not rely upon the donation of time and
materials from individuals, universities and companies? What 2LDs should
there be and how do they relate to each other? Are there natural monopolies
for domain name registration? If there should be competition, at what level
should it be (eg the vaunted Nominet model)? What can we learn from OS DNS
regimes? How do we ensure that personal and commercial interests do not
dominate this debate and the directions we take?

Cheers,
Doug