DNS: DNA Selection Criteria V3.1

DNS: DNA Selection Criteria V3.1

From: <mark.hughes§ccamatil.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:39:06 EDT
I support using objective rather than subjective criteria.

Specific comments as follows:

>3. A charge of $5000 to get setup - refundable minus any costs
>incurred in researching application if unsuccessful,
>^no objections to this so far|

>7. DNA licences should be reviewed and renewed annually or more
>frequently at the discretion of the ADNA board.

My suggestion is that ADNA issue DNA licences that are:
*Valid for a period of one year
*Automatically renewed, only subject to the DNA continuing to meet
set criteria (as amended by ADNA from time to time), and subject to
the DNA having paid any charges due to ADNA.

It seems to me that ADNA is happy to issue licences to DNAs to
operate as long as they meet a few minimum criteria - and one
unavoidable implication is that a DNA doing something that
conflicts/causes problems will have their license revoked.  That
being the case, the most effective way to structure the set-up is to
issue the license for a limited period of time, and renewed subject
to the DNA continuing to meet specified criteria.

An organisation interested in becoming a DNA would need some
expectation that their license would not be arbitrarily revoked, and
this is best handled by explicitly stating that licenses will be
automatically renewed subject to the licensee meeting a set of
objective (and knowable in advance) criteria, which would be a
minimum subset of the overall criteria for new players.  For
example, if a DNA has been happily and successfully operating for 10
years, then it seems a bit pointless to ask them to demonstrate that
they have access to $200,000 buckaroos in their hip pocket before
their license is renewed.

Makes it a bit more relevant perhaps to organisations who are
currently operating as DNAs.

Stating that the DNAs must pay fees 'as specified in the ADNA DNA
fee schedule as revised from time to time' gives a bit more
flexibility to ADNA to cover its operating expenses, - which we
should try and keep to an absolute minimum.  It would be good to
have flexibility to design the ADNA fee structure so that if someone
only wanted to be a DNA for a domain for charities (as an example),
the charges could be minimal.

We seem to have missed out the issue of the DNA consistently
applying the rules for domain name allocation for the relevant 2LD.
For example, if one of the rules for the .com.au domain is "won't
approve a geographical name that is a postcode" then all DNAs
operating in .com.au must comply.  Breach of this rule is grounds
for non-renewal of license in my opinion.

Perhaps a new rule 7:
DNAs must impartially apply the rules for domain names as approved
by ADNA for the 2LD.

^Have dropped old point 7: "Must submit contingency plan for support
of its domains if business fails or decides to stop being DNA", not
really an issue if the DNA has nothing to do with hosting the DNS

>8. DNA must be prepared to commit to abide by the DNA Code of

Suggest we delete 'be prepared to commit to' from clause 8.

Regards, Mark

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 08/01/97  14:37:15    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Received on Fri Aug 01 1997 - 15:16:51 UTC

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