Not having been involved with internet rough-consensus gathering as long
some of the other people on this list, I'm somewhat bemused at the
challenge that standard presents.  Perhaps that's a good thing, but I'm
wondering how anything ever got done.  Perhaps that model is only
appropriate when financial interests are absent?

Now, to add to the noise on this question...

Michael Malone wrote:

> > Reducing the requirement from 5 to 1 f/t employee or equivalent is
> > seriously underestimating the resources needed to provide a
> reliable,
> > customer-focussed DNA service for high-volume commercial domains.
>
> But that's the point.  Not all of them will be providing for
> a high volume commercial domain.

No-one has made the suggestion of limiting "DNA's" operations to
specific domains so the criteria have to be written on a basis that
selected DNA's will want to operate in .com.au.

> I think any attempts at a fixed number are short sighted.  We
> should simply require that sufficient numbers of staff are
> available.

Too hard to test.  Might as well not have this criteria at all.

> > It would be irresponsible
> > for ADNA to risk the stability and reliability of the DNS by setting
> the
> > threshold requirements for new DNAs too low.
>
> Perhaps.  But it would be arrogant to presume that we can foresee
> the future, or that we should try to decide what the market wants.

If ADNA successfully sheperds .com.au into competition, there will be an
opportunity to relax the criteria in the future.  The converse doesn't
necessarily hold.

Other than conflict-of-interest concerns (which really only relate to
the .com.au naming policy) I don't think anyone is seriously intending
to place limits on the services a DNA will offer, nor what or how
they'll charge.

Leni.