Catching up on a couple of posts here:

Kevin Dinn wrote:
> >
> >Can this be legally done, so it really won't happen. What if ADNA wrong,
> >they can be sued if this is the case.
> >
> >>
> >> - You might want to specific that DNA's agree to submit to and/or
> >> participate in a dispute resolution process if disputes occur either in
> >> terms of inter-DNA cooperation (e.g. database updates, server operations
> >> etc) or if their customers dispute their decisions.
> 
> Another thing for the code of conduct, Leni.

Well, the current code of conduct is really for the customers, not to
settle inter-DNA disputes.  IMHO, the structure should be one that
doesn't need inter-DNA co-operation in order for competition to
flourish.  Not that we want outright hostility either!  The co-operation
is between the central repository and the DNA.

The dispute policy is something that hasn't been talked about.  Perhaps
MelbourneIT could provide some input on how successful they feel theirs
has been.  Is it something in which all DNAs operating in .com.au could
participate?

> >> - What will you do when, after 6 months, someone in com.au says "stuff it,
> >> we'll register any name that's not already taken". Right now, you have to
> >> leave them to do it for six months before their next 12 monthly review
> >> comes up - and then what do you do ? You can't revoke the 10,000 cute names
> >> registered in the meantime.
> 
> I think its in the code of conduct that the DNA cannot register names for
> itself so it would have to register these things for someone else who would
> have to pay for them. I'm pretty sure breaches of the code of conduct can
> result in instant retribution - not limited to annual reviews.
> 
Yes, that's the intent, I'll re-read it to make sure it says that.

But it brings up an interesting point, if the registrar issues the name
in blatant contravention of domain policy, what should ADNA do about
it?  Removing the registration might create legal headaches and the
temptation would be for ADNA to ignore it's policy rather than bite the
legal bullet.  Which get's back to the issue (that I must admit, it's
been nice not having around for a while) of conflict of interest which
really has to be addressed in the selection criteria.  It's just too
late afterwards.

Kevin Dinn wrote:
> >>8. Must submit contingency plan for support of its domains if
> >>business fails or decides to stop being DNA,
> >>
> >>9. DNAs for commercial domain names should be required to operate on a
> >>proper commercial basis, charging on the basis of total service costs
> >>plus margin for the DNA activity, to avoid predatory behaviour,
> >
> >There could be restrictive trade practices issues here so this needs to
> >be treated with care.
> 
> This is actually something that should be part of the code of conduct for
> DNAs, Leni, could you look at incorporating this if applicable? I will take
> it out of the selection critria.
> 

This seems like a ACCC issue.  I'd suggest ADNA would be overstepping
it's bounds try to police something like this...

Instead, I'd suggest ADNA will have to have a "Terms and Conditions"
acceptance agreement to be signed by the successful DNAs.  Perhaps
something in there to suggest that if some judgement is issued against a
DNA by someone like the ACCC, then ADNA has the discretion to penalize
the DNA and ultlimately revoke permission to operate.

> >>10. All DNAs operating within an SLD are subject to the same policy as
> >>specified by the original applicant,
> 
> This also is a code of conduct thing.
> 
I agree.  I'll put it in.

Leni.