> > But that's the point.  Not all of them will be providing for
> > a high volume commercial domain.
> 
> No-one has made the suggestion of limiting "DNA's" operations to
> specific domains so the criteria have to be written on a basis that
> selected DNA's will want to operate in .com.au.

Then it would appear that you are writing DNA selection
criteria for COM.AU.  If so, then state this.  I was under
the (possibly mistaken?) impression that we were trying
to get a basic set of requirements for a DNA to operate
in one (or more) generic 2LD's.

Even for just COM.AU, this smells of "entry barriers".


> Other than conflict-of-interest concerns (which really only relate to
> the .com.au naming policy) I don't think anyone is seriously intending
> to place limits on the services a DNA will offer, nor what or how
> they'll charge.

I disagree.  By placing an arbitrary minimum, you are doing
exactly this.  By saying a DNA has to have 5 staff, and
backing this up with comparisons with the only existing COM.AU
delegate, then we are effectively saying that all future DNA's
should have the same (high) QoS as Melbourne IT.

I don't believe this is any of ADNA's business. I'm not
even sure that there is a necessity to question what
happens if a DNA goes broke.  If this happens, then
their domains sit in the DNS untouched until they need
service, at which time, they can choose a more reliable
DNA.

Nothing we can do, and no prerequisities we set, will
affect the possibility of DNA's going out of business.
Liquidity today says very little about viability next
month in this industry, or about the ability of the
owners to tolerate each other for another week.

Secondly, very little we say or do will affect QoS.  Rich
companies can give crap service.  I've had some of my best
possible business experiences with family or even sole trader
businesses.  You cannot force people to give good service,
and seriously, I don't see it being part of ADNA's brief.

The only issues we have to ensure are that the policies
are adhered to, and that the software works.  That's
what we should be doing. Its up to the market to decide
the rest.

MM