Michael Malone wrote:

> > > 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

I basically agree with you re: QoS and market forces.  However none of
what you have said addresses the concern of stability in the
marketplace.  The other selection criteria that relates to stability is:

7. Must submit contingency plan for support of its domains if business
fails or decides to stop being DNA,

If the domains are going to "sit in the DNS", then what does this mean?

Leni.