At 11:30 30/07/97 +0000, Kevin Dinn wrote:
...
>
>I agree that us ISPs are occasionally guilty of delusions of grandeur and
>biting off more than we can chew. However we should also take into account
>that we will be replacing Melbourne IT running .com.au alone with some
>number (10 ish?) DNAs sharing the load. So while it may need more than 1
>person, it probably won't need as many as Melbourne IT have on the case. So
>I guess we are looking at somewhere in between.
 
Fair enough. As I mentioned at the first ADNA Board meeting, Melbourne IT
has ten full-time staff members devoted to the com.au bureau service (with
the biggest load being handling help-desk inquiries).  As a rule of thumb I
would see about five staff as being the minimum level required to carry out
the commercial DNA functions responsibly, independent of volume. Obviously
the DNA needs to put additional resource into marketing to make sure that
the volume is sufficient, and the pricing realistic, to more than cover costs.
> ...
>Perhaps using $ rather than staff numbers is a better way to go as it can
>then be used to indicate an ability to handle all eventualities whether it
>be a need for more staff, more equipment, more connectivity - whatever.

I agree.

>But I think $400k is a lot steep. If we set it at this level we will rule out
>all but quite large businesses. I think maybe more like $100k liquid
>capital might be more reasonable.

I disagree. Being a DNA for the commercial sector carries more
responsibilities, and requires significantly more resource (particularly on
help-desk support), than would be funded by $100K of working capital. It
also requires far more resource than being a DNA for a non-fee-paying 2LD,
as that role requires no payment and accounting system, nor does it require
resources for dealing with bad debts etc.

I am becoming concerned that the majority of the contributions to the DNA
selection criteria appear to be more heavily slanted to "how can we reduce
the barriers of entry so that any worthy ISP can find a profitable new line
of business as a DNA" rather than on taking a user perspective, and
concentrating on what are the minimum service requirements for such a DNA,
and working back from those to the selection requirements.

I know Michael is advancing the argument that "let the market decide",
which is a plausible approach until you are the customer that has bought
family tickets with Compass and suddenly Compass goes bust. Michael, to
give him credit, is advocating setting up infrastructure arrangements so
that the impact of a DNA disappearing on the end-user is minimised. Like
Pauline, I don't think it's going to be that simple to achieve.

However going down that path would merely shift the attention from
rigourous DNA selection criteria to the need for even more rigorous
procedures to prove that the proposed operational arrangemnts will work
under realistic conditions - in advance of granting any multiple DNA
licences. 

I believe it is in the Internet industry's best interests, as well as the
interests of the Australian business community (the end customers), to keep
the DNA selection criteria rigorous, and to err on the side of conservatism
in order to ensure that new DNAs will have the resource capabilities to
carry out their crucial functions.
 
Regards
PG