DNS: DNA/2LD Selection Criteria 3.3 + issues

DNS: DNA/2LD Selection Criteria 3.3 + issues

From: Kevin Dinn <kevin§zip.com.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 16:18:55 +0000
Below is the latest version of the selection criteria. The criteria
themselves as they currently stand are at the bottom of the document. The
first section sets out the issues that have to be resolved before the
criteria can be finalised and the pros and cons on each issue. The final
verdict on these will have to come at the ADNA board meeting.

Please respond with additional issues and pros and cons as well as any
recommended changes to the content of this document.


Kevin Dinn

------------------------ 8<

In the process of trying to define the selection criteria for new DNAs and
2LDs, the following issues were raised and proved to be largely
unresolvable using the mailing list forum. These have to be decided by the
ADNA board before a final version of the criteria can be reached.

Below I have set out the issuess and and the arguments for and against
them. Note that the arguements are not certified to be true, they are just
opinions that were expressed in the debate.

At the bottom of this document are attached the selection criteria as they
currently stand awaiting resolution of the issues.

1. Issues to be resolved

1.1 Scope of domains to be covered: 1 or more of:

1.1.1 .com.au

everyone accepts that this should be included

1.1.2 other existing 2LDs considered commercial (eg. .net.au) pro

Makes sense that if ADNA is initally focused on commercial domans then it
should cover all commercial domains. If the object of the excercise is to
ensure fair competition then this may be jeapordised by a competitor not
restricted by ADNA policies con

Requires cooperation of current holders of existing 2LDs

1.1.3 new 2LDs created for commercial use pro

This allows for the increases in diversity of available domain names which
was one of the aims of ADNA con

It simplifies matters if we donít try and add new 2LDs just work with .com.au

Would appease the ADNA objectors to a certain extent if ADNA did not create
new 2LDs

1.1.4 other new non-commercial 2LDs

everyone accepts that these should not happen at this stage (if ever)

1.2 Should all DNAs administer all 2LDs?

1.2.1 pro

Makes life simpler as donít have to deal with situation where all DNAs for
a particular 2LD drop out

As all the initial 2LDs will be commerically oriented the clients for these
will be the same group, thus it makes sense that DNAs would be inclined to
offer all the 2LD options

1.2.2 con

Certain potential new 2LDs like .tm.au might require special skills or
access to certain information that not all DNAs could satisfy, hence there
should be provision for specialist DNAs

1.3 Should criteria be "deterministic"

1.3.1 pro

Ideally the  applicant should know at the time of application whether they
will be approved based on the fact that they know they satisfy all the

Avoids the ADNA board having to make subjective decisions which are open to
debate and critisicm

1.3.2 con

To achieve this need to include specific figures in criteria such as "must
have 5 full time employees, must have 64K permanent link". As soon as such
a statement is made however there is always great debate about what the
exact figure should be to the point where a resolution is almost impossible

Some suggested criteria should be more flexible to account for unforseen
circumstances such as less staff necessary than first thought, eg. "must
have adequate staff"

1.4 Should criteria be very strict

1.4.1 pro

To avoid the chronic phenomenon of ISP types biting off more than they can

The DNA should be of good character to avoid bringing the system into

The DNA should be stable and well established to avoid it having to drop
out of the system and leaving its customers hanging

1.4.2 con

As the actual DNS systems will be maintained independantly of  the DNAs it
is not such a disaster if they go broke - unless of course they are the
sole DNA for a 2LD

1.5 Should ADNA create only a limited number of 2LDs

1.5.1 pro

This would ne the cautious approach to test the new system as once a 2LD is
brought into existence it will be with us forever

Each new 2LD adds complexity to the DNA software systems (?)

1.5.2 con

The ADNA board should let just about any application for a new 2LD through
because the market can then decide which ones are necessary rather than the
ADNA board having to assess this

If a 2LD is not very popular it wonít have much of an impact on anything -
the .csiro.au has only hundreds of 3LDs and the DND systems is coping with
this fine

2. Selection criteria for DNAs

Minimum requirements for DNA status:

1. Must be an incorporated body,
[everyone seems to agree on this]

2. Must be able to demonstrate availability of AU$200,000 liquid capital,
[To cover any unforseen issues like extra staff, equipment, connectivity]

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

4. Must have a permanent connection to the Internet,
[This used to be much more involved including descriptions of minimum
levels of connectivity, etc. but as the DNA wonít be hosting the DNS
servers it will only disadvantage them if their link is inadequate. If
customers canít get through they will go to another DNA]

5. Must be covered by at least $1,000,000 professional indemnity insurance,
[Seems OK with everybody]

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

7. DNA must abide by the DNA Code of Conduct.
[Added this one - pretty obvious but may as well spell it out]

3. Selection criteria for new 2LDs

1. Nomination must come from DNA
[Some said anyone should be able to nominate but I think if no DNA will
support the nomination then it really canít be nominated.]

2. Name should be no less than 2 letters + .au
[Fairly inoffensive condition]

3. What is domain of new 2LD (eg. commercial enterprises for .com)
[Necessary part of application]

4. What restrictions will apply to applicants for domains (eg. has to be
significant part of registered business name for .com)
[Another requirement no one seems to have a problem with]

5. Justification for need for new 2LD
[Still the $64k question and not very well answered yet. How does the ADNA
board decide whether a new 2LD should be accepted or not?]

6. Must allow 60 day public notice period for comment before final approval
by board. In 60 day period objections to the new 2LD should be received and
considered by ADNA.
[Everyone seems happy with this too]
Received on Thu Aug 07 1997 - 17:40:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC