At 16:38 18/07/97 +1000, Chris Chaundy wrote:
>There hasn't been much discussion on this since Simon's comments so I'll
>toss in a few more (apart from basically agreeing with Simon's):

Chris,

Thanks for the stir-up, I was just about to do this myself. We have till
the end of the month to get this stuff to the point where we can start
taking our first applications.

>
>At 19:44 8/7/97, Kevin Dinn wrote:
>>Following is the first draft of the selection criteria for allocating
>>new DNAs (Domain Name Administrators) and 2LDs (2nd Level Domains).
>>
>>Please feel free to comment copiously. Submissions for the final
>>document will close at the endof July.
>>
>>Kevin Dinn
>>(DNA Selection Working Group)
>>
>>------------------------
>>
>>Selection criteria for DNAs (Minimum requirements for DNA status):
>>
>>1. Must be an incorporated body,
>>
>>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,
>
>If we are going to throw in numbers here, the '1 full time employee'
>should at least be '1 full time employee or equivalent'.

Fair comment - I'll enter it.

>
>>3. A charge of $5000 to get setup - refundable minus any costs
>>incurred in researching application if unsuccessful,
>>
>>4. Must have permanent connection to the Internet of at least 64K.
>>This connection should be maintained to be unsaturated at all times,
>
>Not sure if we want to get into service levels here, but 'unsaturated'
>is pretty non-descript.  One should be concerned about both link (and
>system) performance and reliability here.

Also a fair comment but how do we define or quantify this? Maybe it should
be something along the lines that they "must be able to demonstrate a
stable server system continuously connected to the Internet". Still a bit
vague, I would really like some sort of measurable quantity like no more
than 5% packet loss to server - would this be meaningful?

>
>>5. Must be covered by at least $500,000 professional indemnity
>>insurance,
>>
>>6. Must submit business plan for company as a whole,
>
>I have a real problem with this one.  If an applicant happens to be an IAP
>and another IAP is on the review panel...  You have got to be joking!

Fair comment - I'll take this out. Boy - this is easy :-)

>
>>7. For each 2LD that they want to deal with, they should submit
>>business plan for what they intend to do with it,
>
>On the contrary to criteria 6, this is reasonable.

OK.

>
>>8. Must submit contingency plan for support of its domains if
>>business fails or decides to stop being DNA,
>>
>>9. DNAs for commercial domain names should be required to operate on a
>>proper commercial basis, charging on the basis of total service costs
>>plus margin for the DNA activity, to avoid predatory behaviour,
>
>There could be restrictive trade practices issues here so this needs to
>be treated with care.

This is actually something that should be part of the code of conduct for
DNAs, Leni, could you look at incorporating this if applicable? I will take
it out of the selection critria.

>
>>10. All DNAs operating within an SLD are subject to the same policy as
>>specified by the original applicant,

This also is a code of conduct thing.

>>
>>11. DNA licences should be reviewed and renewed annually.
>>
>>...

Any comments on seletion o new 2LDs?

>
>--
>Chris Chaundy (Network Manager)


Regards

--
Kevin Dinn ____________________    o    _          _--_|\    ZIP P/L 
Business Manager              /____|___|_)________/______\_____________
www.zip.com.au                         | .        \_.--._/  Virtually
Phone: (Australia) 02 92 704 777  Fax: 92 475 276       v  the best :-)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     President - The Australian Internet Alliance (www.aia.asn.au)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...