Adam,

>>1. Committment by existing Registrars to support
>>competition.  So far, they have made that committment on
>>the not-unreasonable proviso that if they give up their
>>monopoly, other Registrars also give up their existing
>>monopoly at the same time.  Speculation that the Registars
>>"don't really mean it" is..........speculation, and can't
>>be tested until the following steps are complete.
>Now, does this mean that MIT want CCA to share their resources as well?
>What baout other enterants?  What is involved for them?  Does DOT AUS Pty
>Ltd have to include MIT and CCA in the registrations of AUS names?

I don't understand the reference to CCA, as CCA has no involvement and
is not a Registrar.

Each Registrar currently has an effective monopoly over an SLD.  They
have made in-principle committment to enabling competition between
Registrars, as long as other Registrars do likewise.

So, for example, Melbourne IT's public committment has been that
they will support a system that enables other Registrars to
register domain names in .com.au, if Melbourne IT is allowed
to register domain names in other SLDs.

And that's a perfectly reasonable attitude too.  Expecting one
Registrar to give up its monopoly while others happily retain
theirs is inequitable.

>>2. Development of Shared Registry Software (SRS).
>>Substantial work on this has been done.  Currently a
>Alrady exists and has been running now for over 12 months. It's been on
>offer several times under two terms:
>1.  That AHNET be permitted to sell names in which case access to the
>central databses will be fully sharedand free or royalty, replicated and
>administered under privacy agreement with up ito TWO other Registries; or
>2.  AHNET will no SELL names, but will charge an administration and
licence
>fee for use of the SRS Software and code, full auditing will be required
on
>a monthly basis, generated by the SRS database.

Adam, do you mean by clause 1. that if AHNET becomes a Registrar
for Australian SLDS you will make your Shared Registry Software
available free of charge for other Registrars to use?

As you have no doubt realised from the draft Registrar
Licence Conditions document, the ADNA proposal is that
any and all organisations that meets the few
requirements listed can become a Registrar.

The ADNA proposal has objective criteria and no limits
on numbers of Registrars.

>>version is in use and being tested.  Substantial further
>>work may be required to ensure it meets User Requirements.
>I haven't seen anything about this "version" being tested?
>Who is writing it? What are the specifications? What
>about Security and Privacy?

Regardless of whether the software I referred to,
or the AHNET software, or any other SRS software was
used as the end solution, all that would be public,
and the solution would be a public asset.  I am trying
to co-ordinate User Requirement specifications, but have
a reluctance to publicise the document in its current raw
state.

>>3. Development of Registrar Licence Conditions under
>>which multiple Registrars would operate.  Draft document
>>is available at:
>>
>>http://www.adna.asn.au/Documents/RegistrarLicences.html
>We will be issuing a resonse shortly, I assume there is no deadline as one
>has not been annouced?
You assume correctly.

>>I have received feedback on the current draft and should
>>have a revision available in a day or so.
>You can't revise a draft without accepting all relevant comments prior to
>revision.  This is not a fair and open process.
Well, yes I can.  But there is no end deadline for the process at this
stage.  I believe that it's probably more practical to make iterative
revisions and then when the flow of suggestions dries up, to set an
end date.  While I'd like to have competition today, I'd like to ensure
the documents are right, too.  The only problem with making iterative
revisions is if comment one says:

Change point six from A to B

and I change it, and then a later comment says:

Change point six back from B to A

If that happens then we're going to have to try and guage the general
support for each option.  It's all going to be public on this list
server.

>Can you PLEASE put a DEADLINE for submissions date on comments for drafst
>that allows a reasonable time for comments.
Not at this stage.  I don't think development of either of the two
existing documents is actually going to be the hold-up in any process
to enable competition.  At this stage, I don't see the time factor
as critical.

>Here we go again.  No closing date, but lets update it anyway.
>I hope you don't run tenders this way?

Actually, the iterative process of the document development
more closely matches the development of public software
such as linux.  That sort of process can be very effective.

>>One of the major constraints to progress is lack of
>>resources.
>Then ask and it shall be provided.

Adam, thank you.  The actual costs involved are not great,
but some are unavoidable, and for some its a tradeoff
between volunteer input (which tends to slow the
process due to individuals lack of time) and paying
someone to do the job.

About $20,000 for a part time co-ordinator to do
administrative work, improve the communication,
and co-ordinate document development, improvements
to M and A, plus some legal fees from that,
would help greatly.  Please confirm that you can
supply this, or part of it, and I'll provide you
with ADNA's bank BSB number and you can do a direct
deposit.

BTW, I have collated all the feedback received so
far on the .pr.au document, prepared it all for
a posting to the list server, revised the source
document and am currently creating an html version
for the web site.  Hopefully that will all
be posted shortly.

Regards, Mark