I'd like to add my support for Simon & Michael

>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.

The objective of including some 'hurdle' that new DNAs must get over
before they can play in the game seems to be an attempt to ensure
that organisations taking on the task of a DNA give some thought to
what resources they will need and what quality of service they can
deliver.

But I think that setting an initial hurdle as a barrier to entry is
an ineffective way of trying to avoid or minimise the above
situation.  ie, heart's in the right place, but the wrong solution
for the problem.

A more effective solution to the issue of 'what if they find they
haven't the resources or whatever and don't want to be a DNA
anymore' is to merely ensure that the exit of a DNA does not disrupt
the system - that's a question of ensuring that when new DNAs start,
there is an effective exit strategy in place so there's no
disruption to the users if the DNA folds/quits.

And a more effective solution to the service quality issue (if
indeed its even relevant for ADNA, and I'm not sure is) might be to
include a rule that says something like:

'DNAs must state what their service levels are and report monthly on
their WWW pages what percentage of requests do not meet their stated
service level'.

So if a DNA says they'll process applications in 90 days, they
report against what they have said they will deliver.

But I think the best solution to the service quality issue may be
just to include a requirement that a DNA must make it clear what
they are providing and must state as a minimum:

*What fee will be charged (if any)
*What will be done by the DNA
*In what time frame

so the users know what service they can expect, and its up to the
users to worry about whether they're happy with the service.

>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.

I agree.

For all us business folks wanting domains for our organisations, we
want the process to be reliable and to get the service we pay for.
But I don't think an initial 'hurdle' for DNAs is the best way of
addressing this.

From a 'political' viewpoint, I guess we'd prefer not to see 10 new
DNAs start up and then walk away from it two months later if they
find its costing them more/benefiting them less than they expected.
That sort of situation might generate some negative publicity I
suppose, but I'd rather risk it than try and incorporate barriers to
entry which are nebulous to define and apply.

Regards, Mark


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 07/30/97  14:09:14    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *