Re: DNS: April 4th ADNA meeting

Re: DNS: April 4th ADNA meeting

From: Michael Malone <mmalone§>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:57:11 +0800
> 4.  Applying for ACCC exemption, including submission, $20-25,000
> 5.  Applying for ACA endorsement, impossible to say at this stage, but
> using the ACCC as a guideline $20-25,000

Like others, I question the benefits of either of these options.
Would Luke (or someone else?) care to indicate why this is 
necessary and what the real benefits accrued would be likely
to be?

> 6.  Administration, $5,000

Define? (Not really relevant at this cost, but for interests sake)

> 7.  Running .au name servers (part of the responsibility that goes along
> with the authority to allocate DNA's), anyone's guess, allowing for
> eventualities say $50,000

Let's face it; several bodies would fall over themselves
to do this for free.  Its currently provided for free as
it is!  (eg: the current authorities for COM.AU include
NASA, and Uni of Southern California, as
well as Melbourne Uni).

Put it to tender if preferred.  Ask for tenders for the
honour of hosting a .AU authority, make as many service
requirements as reasonably required, and I'll bet you
still get dozens of applications, all having superb

> 9.  Other miscellaneous, at this stage unthought of eventualities, $20,000

I thought this would come under "Administration" ?

> Some of these figures are generous, but then it pays to be generous when
> doing financial planning of this sort.  As you can see, there are quite
> a few more costs, on the order of $132,500-152,500 in the first year.
> This needs to be paid for.  Roughly $70,000 per annum may come out of
> the name space at current rates.

In my opinion, these costs are unnecessarily high.  I would
also be very surprised and disappointed if the "current rates"
for COM.AU domains were at all relevant once competition
is introduced.  I would expect fees to eventually tend
towards zero, as they should.  Call this conclusion naive if
you wish, but there are many ancillary benefits accruable
from being involved.

This of course casts doubts on a future income stream for
the ADNA, but I have serious reservations about the requirement
for any significant expenditure requirements anyway.
What it boils down to is we are trying to replace the
job that Robert Elz is currently doing for free.  The
suggestion that this will require a multi million dollar
income is ludicrous.

I believe that there is too much of an attempt to make the ADNA
into another ATUG or ACCC.  The ultimate goal is to create an
unbiased, widely representative technical working group,
hopefully with some legal protections so it can do its job.
That's all.

Received on Fri Mar 28 1997 - 09:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC