> >I would also suggest that we can now progress on the basis that *all* such
> >new DNAs will deal with *all* the initial ADNA 2LDs be they existing or new
> >as they (the domains) will all be commercially based.
>  
> I tend to disagree. This seems to be more a technology-driven solution than
> one looking at market-driven requirements.
> For example, there would be a good case for the Australian Industrial
> Policy Office (AIPO)- or a subcontracted entity acting on their behalf - to
> be the DNA for a new tm.au 2LD, as they obviously have the greatest
> expertise to check their own databases to check if a candidate name already
> has some status in the Australian trademark registration process. But I
> suspect that the AIPO would not be interested in any wider DNA
> responsibilities. 
> One can postulate other specialist, valuable 2LDs suitable for specialised
> DNAs.
> And why should a 'generalist DNA' need to cover all the specialised 2LDs?

I must support Peter here.  To assume a business decision such as operating
in a number of 2LD's for any DNA would be presumptious, and better left to
the DNA in question.  A set of criteria that allows for this sort of 
flexibility is necessary to ensure the appropriate groups can be involved
where they feel the need, and that every DNA has the ability to operate in
the manner they feel is most appropriate to their business model, allowing
them to offer their customers the best service they can.  Where this
flexiblity can be maintained without sacrifice, this should be a priority
in determining applicant's criteria.



Luke Carruthers
Magna Data
Internet Solutions Provider