At 12:23 23/07/97 +0800, Michael Malone wrote:
>
>> 3. A charge of $5000 to get setup - refundable minus any costs 
>> incurred in researching application if unsuccessful,
>> [no objections to this so far]
>
>Ok, I'll object to it :-)
>
>In an earlier message, Kevin commented that a DNA should
>be able to register domains in all 2LD's operated by ADNA.
>In that environment, the $5000 is appropriate.
>
>I'm aware that the gTLD stuff has gone this way.   However, I'm
>not sure that this means we should automatically do so ourselves.
>
>I use NET.AU and ASN.AU here just for example, and don't in any way
>claim they will ever get involved in this setup anyway.  I also do
>not claim any absolute that there will -ever- be more than one 2LD 
>involved.
>
>It may be immenently suitable for COM.AU and NET.AU to be
>operated by the same organisation.  The type of client will
>be fairly similar for each, with similar requirements and
>payment abilities.
>
>However, this may not be the case for ASN.AU. Having ASN.AU
>run by (let's say) the Red Cross may be a superb idea, or
>as it is now, by one individual.
>
>I would prefer to see DNA's apply to be registrars in each 2LD
>that they wish to register for, and for that application to be
>considered within the policy framework and "client base" of
>that 2LD.  Remember who the end client is at all times.
>
>It may be appropriate that some of them get "lumped together",
>so that you make one application to be a registrar for
>COM.AU/NET.AU/BIZ.AU.  However, if you wish to be a registrar
>for ASN.AU, you would put in a separate case, with consideration
>to the differing user base and ability to pay of potential
>registrants in ASN.AU.
>

Fair comment, I suppose it comes to the good old debate of the scope of
ADNA. If all it is is commercially related domains then they can all be
lumped together. As this is the stated *initial* position of ADNA, maybe we
should work on that assumption to start with. If ADNA starts to take on the
likes of .asn.au we can make new rules then.

>
>
>> 4. Must be able to guarantee adequate connectivity and server 
>> performance to maintain acceptable levels of response to requests 
>> for DNS functions,
>
>As mentioned elsewhere, I'm not at all sure that we need to
>be any more specific than:
>
>   4. Must be able to demonstrate connectivity and equipment
>      performance to provide an adequate level of service.
>

Yeah - and that's *really* different to what I said. :-)

>
>
>> 5. Must be covered by at least $500,000 professional indemnity 
>> insurance,
>> [Seems OK with everybody]
>
>Although perhaps a little low.  The company I work for has had
>$1,000,000 since it was employing only two people, and our
>exposure is probably much less than this body.  I'd have
>said $5M, but I'm not an insurance agent.
>

OK - I'll split the difference and make it $1,000,000.

>
>> 6. The DNA should submit a business plan for the DNA sector of its 
>> business.
>> [Removed the requirement for a business wide business plan, really 
>> gonna miss reading the Telstra business plan :-) ]
>
>Why do you want a business plan at all?  If there is one person
>operating as a free DNA for a non profit, non fee charging 2LD,
>then a business plan is inappropriate.  The other example given
>was csiro.au.  I would be far more interested in the statement
>of policy for the 2LD, an enforcable agreement by the DNA to follow
>this policy, and a contengency plan if they cease to exist.  I see
>little reason for anything else.
>
>I also question ADNA's ability to evaluate the viability
>of any business plan.
>

I think it is more just a demonstration that they have a good grasp of what
wil be involved. It doesn't necessarily have to be about money and profits,
it should also cover expansion, staff, projected growth, market segments,
that sort of stuff. I don't think its unreasonable that the prospective DNA
should have to prove some knowledge of the process they are applying for.
Happy to take this out if people object though.

>
>> 5. Justification for need for new 2LD
>> [Still the $64k question and not very well answered yet. How does 
>> the ADNA board decide whether a new 2LD should be accepted or 
>> not?]
>> 
>> 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.
>
>I would suggest that (6) answers your question to (5).

It will certainly help. Trouble is the ADNA board still needs some terms of
reference for approving or disapproving an application as well as for
judging any objections to it in the 60 day period.

>
>MM
>
>

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