Chris Disspain wrote
>Cate,
>
>I do not think your comments are in any way a personal attack. I welcome
>robust debate on all issues and that is, at least in part, what this list is
>for.

well ok then... I find the absence of a formal resolution on the move to 
request a re-delegation at this time quite disturbing. I also find staff 
assertions that none is required equally disturbing. Please remedy this 
minor oversight by calling a meeting (by electronic means or whatever as 
allowed for in the constitution) and poll each Board member as to their 
support for this action at this time, then post the results on the web. ( I 
can live with a retroactive resolution since the issue is for me is not so 
much the action at this stage - since I have no detail - but process and 
accountability, which I thought was the whole point of auDA)

My concern / curiosity stems from media releases which imply there has been 
some sort of impasse and auDA releases which say he wont return your calls. 
I wonder what formal concrete documented steps were taken to win him over 
and whether each board member considered them sufficient. I would have 
thought if the board sent formal letters to Elz 90 days ago or whatever 
that those would have been posted.  If the letter simply said "we would 
like to assume the role of trustee and have the support of xyz, please let 
us know if you have any concerns so that we may address them. If we dont 
hear from you in 90 days we will assume we have your support and approach 
the IANA for a re delegation. Maybe you did this who knows, After not 
having heard from him I would have though the board would have met and 
approved (formally) the staff to approach the IANA.... I know too much 
openness and transparency can slow things down and start little "off topic 
" bush fires, fair enough but a formal move by the board to approve a major 
inititive is not too much to ask. I think I have exhausted this topic now, 
sorry to moan on list readers...

Cate Coorey