> >
> >2. Must have at least 5 full time employees working for the company or
> >intending to work for the company with at least 1 full time employee
> >to devote to DN applications,
> >
> 
> Why those sizings? i.e. what lead to "5" and "1" - just seemed like good
> numbers at the time? What if a new company fires itself up and plans to
> hire people as needed, and doesn't have 5 initially - do they have to hire
> 5 people, then apply, then sack them if their application is un-successful? 
> 
> If there is a need for at least one full time "DN" person, what are the
> other 4 people for - window dressing? 
> 

I asked the same question at the ADNA board meeting and Peter gave me some
insight into the staff load at Melb IT for processing requests. To
roughly quote Peter - to be able to run a ".com.au" sized DNA he
considered five staff a minimum considering the policy constrainsts of
".com.au".

> Could a potential DNA simply nominate a company that they would contract
> staff in from if successful? 

I see that as a usefull way to get around startup DNA staffing problems
in the cost model

> 
> Personally, I'd suggest that this clause is un-necessary. If you want to
> define "serious" in some useful way, define it with the application fee and
> the size of the network link (2mb/sec min), and forget about associating
> company size with capacity to operate as a DNA - those who use creative
> automation will need a lot less staff than those who decide to make paper
> mountains.

There is also the point of having ISPs as DNAs - something Robert Elz has
been contributing to the DNASEL list. From the point of view of total
transparency of DNA duties having an IAP/ISP dispense this function could
be seen as a conflict of interest. The point was also made that certain
DNA's now are I[AS]Ps !

> 
> >3. A charge of $5000 to get setup - refundable minus any costs 
> >incurred in researching application if unsuccessful,
> >
> 
> probably fair - high enough to deter silly applications, but not so high as
> to deter genuine competition. What, exactly, happens to the $5000 - does it
> just float into the bank account of ADNA as general revenue? Does any of it
> go towards software development for the benefit of all DNA's, or is this
> just money towards ADNA's legal bills in practical terms? 

Some of the members of ADNA have agreed to write the softwore to
facilitate the multiple DNA problem to get around all the nasties it might
introduce. 
The money from the ADNA startup fee was seen to be able to fund :

ADNA startup
Software development costs
The other aim of ADNA to monitor the .au name space



> >4. Must have permanent connection to the Internet of at least 64K.
> >This connection should be maintained to be unsaturated at all times,
> >
> 
> Where is the 64K determined from, i.e.:
> 
> 	- will the DNA be required to run a primary and multiple secondary DNS's
> that are listed as official secondaries for the domains they operate in (in
> which case I submit that 64K isn't enough - for com.au at least) OR
> 	- will the DNA be required to just hand synchronization/database change
> requests to some other entity running the public, official primary and
> secondary servers for each relevant domain (in which case 64K would be
> enough, because only the database deltas would be transmitted over the
> link, no user requests for DNS name lookups).
> 
> Either way, I personally feel that number ought to be 2 megabits per
> second;  The $5000 application fee is presumably an idiot-deterrant. Why
> not specify a link size which also is a deterrant to non-serious entrants
> who might not understand the potential traffic loads of operating an
> official primary/secondary for com.au. 

The 64k value was a why not 64k. I agree that the conectivity of any
propestive DNA should be high but what how do we really measure.
Is that 2Mb through Telstra, Connect.com, OGN (!), Access-One or can it be
2Mb through a tier 9 resller !


> >5. Must be covered by at least $500,000 professional indemnity 
> >insurance,
> >
> 
> Sounds ok.
> 
> >6. Must submit business plan for company as a whole,
> >
> 
> Where the DNA is a subsidiary of a larger organization, or a business unit
> of a larger organization, what is the relevance of requiring the business
> plan for the company as a whole?
> 
> For instance, let's take an operative example - Melbourne IT; What is the
> acceptance committee (?) of ADNA going to do with the business plan for
> Melbourne IT's other business interests?
> 
> more specifically, this is useless unless you plan to use it as part of a
> pass/fail determination for accepting a company to become a DNA; So what,
> exactly, would the criteria be for a business plan in order to have it
> "pass" - e.g. is it:
> 
> 	- must be longer than xx pages
> 	- must not be a company that also does... (what?)
> 	- must be a company that also does... (what?)
> 	- must be a mate of (please specify)
> 
> or whatever? i.e. why bother to ask for this at all - isn't the business
> plan implicit ("operate a commercial sustainable business providing
> services as a DNA in nominated namespaces") - what else will you require,
> and exactly why do you need to know (or care)?

The word company as a whole was meant to be the DNA side of the company as
I do not remeber the 'whole company' perpestive being discussed on DNASEL.

The idea behind the business plan was to allow good scrutiny of the
mechanisms the DNA would use to do the administrative things that would be
required.  This is seen as being able to give ADNA an firm idea of what
the new DNA is about:

Are they cold blooded capitalists ?
Are they doing this for the good of all men ?
Do they have any idea what they are in for ?

Do they have an upgrade path for staff recruitment ?
Do they have an administrative framework that can handle the work load
that they perceive they will get ?

Proving people are seroius by asking them to write cheques is one thing
but asking them to detail in a 'business plan' how they exactly intend to
pull off this DNA thing is better.


Perhaps 'business plan' is a poor choice of words where 'DNA plan' or
'Domain Plan' would be better.

 
> re-registration fee if a customer requests changes to information
> originally registered by a defunct DNA). That guarantees continuity of
> service to clients. Just draw it up, and make all prospective DNA's sign up
> to it. Why give them the lattitude to make their own (inconsistent) plans
> in this regard? make them all agree to certain things "for the common good"
> or they can't play!

I prefer this method - make being a DNA possible only if you chose to
cooperative in the total management of the domains you are involved with.

> 
> Isn't the whole aim to have multiple DNA's so that commercial market forces
> lead to a common/reasonable price (as happens in the ISP industry as a
> whole)? ISP's aren't required to sign up to charging reasonable prices, the
> market forces them to - why is this different - as long as there are
> multiple DNA's in a domain, market forces act as the great leveller here. 
> 

A lot of this was put in to stop the worries about people who may want to
generally drive down the price of domains while subsidising the
operation from other quarters of their business. This is very much wrapped
up with the ISP/DNA argument - should an ISP be allowed to package domians
with products and give preferential treatment to people buying their
other network products.

I agree with letting market forces rule but if there are not some balances
put in place some ugly situations could appear. 


> >
> >Selection criteria for new 2LDs
> >
> >1. Nomination must come from DNA
> >
> 
> ok I guess, but why can't anyone else propose a new 2LD and see if anyone
> of the existing DNA"s wants to offer to handle it? 

That is really interesting - some sort of public submission process where
anybody can 'petition' ADNA to make a new domain available. 

You could also go see a present DNA if you really wanted wanted that
domain badly.
What if the proposed domain name was fairly awfull and no DNA could be
found to take it - I guess it dies a early death.

> 
> 
> >4. What restrictions will apply to applicants for domains (eg. has to
> >be significant part of registered business name for .com)
> >
> 
> See above; Also I'd suggest this is encompassed in the general requirement
> for a prospective DNA to indicate their naming policy in general - but
> under what conditions can they change it in the future - e.g. in the com.au
> case, what happens when Melbourne IT and (say) 4 other operators are
> running in com.au and one of them wants to change the policy statement -
> can any of them do it ? Who arbitrates? ADNA? 

I would have thought that this would not be possible (to change the naming
policy).
What makes an official domain description policy - surely this is done at
boot time for the domain and cannot be changed unless the DNA has consent
from the sub level domain operaters.

> 
> >5. Justification for need for new 2LD (ie. Prove that the added 
> >complexity of a new 2LD is justified by the appeal/demand for new
> >domain and inapplicability of existing domains. Committee should be
> >relatively flexible about this and let most things through unless they
> >are frivolous or offensive. Let market forces determine demand for new
> >2LD.)
> >
> 
> It's not so much compexity as confusion from additional domains. There is
> certainly zero technical reasons to go beyond com.au - until com.au is at
> least 10 times larger than the US ".COM" domain is now, there is no
> rational technical argument for adding more commercial domains. So we come
> down to people wanting a whole new spot in which to argue over their name.
> How, exactly, does a prospective DNA prove demand for something they can't
> necessary supply? Do they guess? Do they lie? Do they put out a petition
> (where?) for (who?) to agree that it's needed? 
> 
> Can a DNA just propose the creation of all 7 of the new domain names
> proposed by the IAHC, under .AU? 
> 

The frivolous/offensive test is not bad. 
Is there a list of offensive words ?
I suppose and who/how does frivolous get tested ?


> >6. Must allow 60 day public notice period for comment before final
> >approval by board. In 60 day period objections to the new 2LD should
> >be received and considered by ADNA.
> >
> 
> Sounds ok to me. Clearly not applicable for com.au, where there is no
> reason why new DNA"s can't enter the market 24 hours after they get the
> go-ahead on their application. 

This is for new domains.

> 
> >7. DNA that proposed the 2LD to be required to guarantee to 
> >maintain processing of the domain for at least 2 years, and then
> >continuing until there are at least 2 other DNA's operating in that
> >domain, and one of those has agreed to continue handling the domain
> >until they can pass it on to someone else, always keeping at least 2
> >DNA's (other than immediately after the domain starts, when there can
> >be just one, or if the last competitor gives up, leaving only the
> >original DNA or someone they transferred the responsibility to).
> >
> 
> I don't think that's entirely fair. Insisting on a minimum of two years'
> operation sounds great. 

I think two years should be minimum.

> Insisting that they operate forever if noone else
> happens to want to also "do" that domain name space is silly, however -
> what's wrong with saying "minimum 2 years" and just *leaving it alone* at
> that - but why make it that DNA's "fault" if noone else wants to operate in
> that namespace inside that two year period and force them to agree to exist
> forever if noone else plays? All that happens if the first DNA dies or
> looses interest is that this domain becomes dormant in terms of changes,
> reverts to the 'owner' of .AU until someone else wants to claim/apply for it. 


The steps are in place to ensure that competing DNAs preserve and backup
and maintain all of the data for the domains they operate in then the loss
of one DNA through either bankruptcy or disinterest is not all that bad.
If we also make it that the DNA must backup up the domain(s) they have an
interst in and and on others and agree to act as a backup for that one
other domain for a specified time then this should also help prevent the
above sceneario.

In other words you are resposible for your domain and the domain
alphabetically ahead of yours when sorted. This way the "church.au" guys
would also have to have in their "domain plan" the way they would
coordinate with the "hospital.au" (as they are next in the sort order) on
the general running of the domain space for both domains.



 > 
> Anyway, this won't happen in practice - Think it over - any entity who is
> able to operate as a commercial DNA is likely to apply for *all* commercial
> name spaces that ADNA manages to gain approval to say "yes" for - and will
> apply for all new namespaces as they (also) become available - because if
> their processes work, why shouldn't they? 
> 
> Anyway - additional things not specified are:
> 
> - time between application and return of a verdict by ADNA to the
> prospective DNA
> 
> - timetable specifically for the addition of new DNA's into com.au (give
> them all an application period, a closing time, a review time, and a start
> time in formal operation so they all start at the same time, I'd suggest -
> this includes reviewing and re-granting Melbourne IT)
> 
> - You might want to ask that prospective DNA's agree not to sue ADNA or its
> officers

Can this be legally done, so it really won't happen. What if ADNA wrong,
they can be sued if this is the case.

> 
> - You might want to specific that DNA's agree to submit to and/or
> participate in a dispute resolution process if disputes occur either in
> terms of inter-DNA cooperation (e.g. database updates, server operations
> etc) or if their customers dispute their decisions.
> 
> - What will you do when, after 6 months, someone in com.au says "stuff it,
> we'll register any name that's not already taken". Right now, you have to
> leave them to do it for six months before their next 12 monthly review
> comes up - and then what do you do ? You can't revoke the 10,000 cute names
> registered in the meantime.


Stephen Baxter                            SE Network Access
SE Network Access                         http://www.senet.com.au
Direct Internet Access                    222 Grote Street
phone : +61 8 8221 5221                   Adelaide 5000
fax   : +61 8 8221 5220

<http://www.senet.com.au/~steve/pgp.html for Public Key>