At 13:50 19/07/97 +0930, you wrote:
>> >
>> >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".

I agree with the previous poster (which for some reason I never got so I
don't know who it was). If it takes 5 people to run a DNA then they should
all be allocated to the DNA thing, there is no need to stipulate 1 to run
the DNA and 4 others for something else. I will take out the reference to
the other 4 in the criteria - any objections? New entry:

"2. Must have at 1 full time employee or equivalent to devote to DN
applications,"

>
>> 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

I think the new "or equivalent" bit covers this.

>
>> 
>> 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 !

See my earlier comment on how we define sufficient server connectivity. I
don't think a 2MB link is very fair - then you will *only* get IAPs as DNAs.

>
>> 
>> >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

Also the process of assessing the application. Sounds like we have support
for the $5000 figure.

>
>
>
>> >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 !

Mike Malone, do you mind giving us some info on the techncial
implementation of the system to help discussion on this.

>
>
>> >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.

Yes - I have removed this clause - now the only applicable line is:

"6. For each 2LD that they want to deal with, they should submit business
plan for what they intend to do with it,"

Crap wording though - any suggestions?

>
> 
>> 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.

Anyone want to suggest what the common contingency plans for all DNAs to
adhere to would be?

>
>> 
>> 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

Beaudy - someone commented on the 2LD stuff too? And I missed it! Where did
this post come from?

>> >
>> >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.

I think unless at least one DNA thinks the new 2LD is a good idea, its not
a good idea.

>
>> 
>> 
>> >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.

This is a good point - there will need to be changes from time to time to
the policies for a 2LD - this has happened at least once to .com.au since
Melbourne IT took it over - I would suggest that the 2LD selection
committee would have to take submissions for these and consult with the
DNAs involved. Not sure where this sort  of stuff should live in the paper
work.

>
>> 
>> >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 ?

The $64,000 question - how does the board decide whether a new 2LD should
be created? I guess it will just have to come down to the board's knowledge
of the general domain name scene. I lean towards being pretty flexible and
seeing what happens. I know there are others who think there should be none
or no more than 1 ro 2 new 2LDs allowed.

>
>
>> >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.

This was written when I was under the impression that DNAs would pick the
2LDs they would operate with. The decision has been made since that all
DNAs will handle all 2LDs under the ADNA umbrella. As such this clause is
irrelevant so I will remove it>

>
>> 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

Do you think the selection criteria should include some maximum time for
applications to be approved? If so what?

>> - 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)

This is currently scheduled for the release of the final criteria by
mid-August, applications accepted after that.

>> 
>> - You might want to ask that prospective DNA's agree not to sue ADNA or its
>> officers

Hmmm ... tricky, might need to get a lawyer to attack this thing.

>
>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.

Another thing for the code of conduct, Leni.

>> 
>> - 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.

I think its in the code of conduct that the DNA cannot register names for
itself so it would have to register these things for someone else who would
have to pay for them. I'm pretty sure breaches of the code of conduct can
result in instant retribution - not limited to annual reviews.

Good stuff - bit long though, sorry about that.



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)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...