Re: DNS: Revised selection criteria for new DNAs/2LDs

Re: DNS: Revised selection criteria for new DNAs/2LDs

From: Leni Mayo <leni§>
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 13:36:52 +1000
In striking a balance, it might be better to err on the side of
caution.  If the up-front criteria are too strict, no-one will pass
muster, but IMHO that's not likely.  More likely, the criteria will be
too weak, increasing the risk of instability with DNA's coming and going

Also, it seems to me that ADNA won't be a good policeman.  Setting aside
the structural concerns, it doesn't have a staff, budget, inclination or
experience for the task.  As with the conflict-of-interest issue,
pushing some issues down into a code-of-practice is really closing the
door after the horse has bolted.


Simon Hackett wrote:

> >
> >Now we know how much Leni has in the bank! :-) I really don't know
> what to
> >do about this 5 employee thing. I make it 5, everybody says 1, I make
> it 1,
> >people say 5. Could people who care just express their opinion and I
> will
> >go with the majority.
> >
> I suggest replacing it by a requirement for a declaration from the
> applicant that they will devote sufficient resources to the task to
> perform
> the required functions properly; Once you approve the DNA's, are you
> planning to audit them, or just to kick their butt if you get
> complaints
> about them? If the latter, then why not forget this stuff, register
> them up
> if they will declare they're serious, and create a procedure for
> warning
> and/or busting DNA's that cause complaints that aren't resolved.
> ---
> Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
> 31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
> Email: simon&#167;  Web:
> Phone: +61-8-8223-2999          Fax: +61-8-8223-1777
Received on Fri Jul 25 1997 - 14:23:28 UTC

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