Re: DNS: ADNA Memoranda & Articles

Re: DNS: ADNA Memoranda & Articles

From: Nick Andrew <nick§>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 18:38:33 +1000 (EST)
Forwarding a message from Stephen Baxter:
> If the 2LD space under .au is not be opened up further then why does ADNA
> or any other body have to be formed. I do not really care about .de or
> .it.

I think there are two worthwhile reasons for such a body. First is to
improve continuity with the passage of time (i.e. kre gets hit by a
bus and there is no clear successor for his role). Second is to manage
the 2LDs in a way that copes well with the growing deployment and
importance of the Internet.

Rightly or wrongly, activities to date have focussed on a body which
achieves wide-ranging community consensus by having a wide-ranging
membership of non-profit interested organisations.

> Somebody at the last meeting said that kre had managed so far by just
> approving next to no 2LDs for some time.

That was me. The point being that before kre assigned to MelbourneIT
99% of his time was spent on "" registrations and 1% on ".au" (kre
may like to correct me if I am wrong on the breakdown). If it only took 1%
of one person's time, is it appropriate to build a complicated structure
to replace that?

I assume any ADNA will do more work than simply "not accepting" further
2LD proposals but it still raises the question of how much work is to
be done, per week month or year?

> What about the and
> that been floated around - either they have been rejected or haven't even
> been tried [...]

Michael Malone and Simon Hackett can answer definitively, but my
understanding is that kre has neither accepted nor rejected the proposal

Kralizec / Zeta Microcomputer Software  Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
P.O. Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765
Received on Mon May 12 1997 - 19:02:48 UTC

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