>] 6. The DNA should submit a business plan for the DNA sector of its
>] business. This should include a description of how the DNA will handle the
>] issues of 
>] á receiving DN applications
>] á approving applications
>] á billing
>] á bad debt collection
>] á customer inquiries
>] á maintaining DNA system
>] á charges that will be applied
>] á cash flow forecast
>] á projections and processes for handling growth
>
>If ADNA is going to use the business plan to decide whether to accept
>the DNA or not, then it is no longer deterministic.  If ADNA is not
>going to read the business plan, then why ask for it?
>
>I cannot understand how that point can be included in a "deterministic"
>selection.

OK - I'll take it out, I didn't think it would be very popular anyway.

>
>] 7. DNA licences should be reviewed and renewed annually or more frequently
>] at the discretion of the ADNA board.
>
>This is the opposite of deterministic.
>
>I'm not necessarily suggesting that point 7 be dropped.  But it is
>not possible to have this criterion/condition (which allows judgment
>to be exercised) and to be deterministic.  You have to choose one.

Well - it doesn't actually apply to the selection process anyway but
doesn't really belong in code of conduct either. I suggest we just let it
through the "deterministic" filter.

>
>] [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 servers]
>
>Personally I think it is important for a contingency plan to exist for the
>case where a DNA ceases operation.  I suggest that if DNAs are not required
>to provide it, then ADNA should create/approve a contingency plan for a
>whole 2LD containing N DNAs (especially if it is possible that N=1).

Well this raises a second contenscious point which we have to decide
immediately which is: Is every DNA going to deal with every 2LD?

Up to now I have been working on the assumption that this is the case. If
this is not the case then we are back into the situation where we have to
make sure all 2LDs have a sufficient number of DNAs supporting it. We have
to cope with the possibility of all the DNAs for a particular 2LD dropping
out and hence noone being around to maintain the 2LD.

The original criteria tried to cope with this by specifying things like:

"7. DNA that proposed the 2LD to be required to guarantee to maintain
processing of the domain for at least 2 years, and then continuing until
there are at least 2 other DNA's operating in that domain, and one of those
has agreed to continue handling the domain until they can pass it on to
someone else, always keeping at least 2 DNA's (other than immediately after
the domain starts, when there can be just one, or if the last competitor
gives up, leaving only the original DNA or someone they transferred the
responsibility to)."

which everybody spewed about. Which is why we came to the conclusion that
all DNAs would take applications for all ADNA 2LDs. Could I get opinions on
this ASAP so we can settle on this point, it is holding up the whole process.

Regards

--
Kevin Dinn ____________________    o    _          _--_|\    ZIP P/L 
Business Manager              /____|___|_)________/______\_____________
www.zip.com.au                         | .        \_.--._/  Virtually
Phone: (Australia) 02 92 704 777  Fax: 92 475 276       v  the best :-)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(soon to be ex) President - Australian Internet Alliance (www.aia.asn.au)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...