Kevin Dinn wrote:
] >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.

Simon Hackett wrote: 
] I guess what is creating the ambuguity here is the definition (over time)
] of "ADNA 2LD's" - if this means, essentially, commercial domains under .au
] (i.e. com.au and future bretheren), then I'd personally expect (but see no
] reason to compel) commercial DNA's to handle requests for all commercial
] domains - why not, it's all more grist for the mill, why turn away business.
] 
] What I think Michael Malone has reminded us of in a recent mail message is
] that not all DNA's are commercial ones - i.e. are operating in domains for
] which $$$ are charged for services, and some of these domains may never
] charge money for services.

Simon raises some good issues here.

But it seems to me there is an easy way to short-circuit these hard
questions, if we restricted the scope and said that these are selection
criteria ONLY for com.au.

If we have separate selection criteria documents for each 2LD, then we 
could cater for the fact that domains have different types of users,
different number of 3LDs, different policies to enforce and different
DNA/fee models.  An obvious example is com.au vs edu.au.

For those 2LDs which are similar (com.au and net.au perhaps), then down
the track the criteria could be cloned and tailored (if necessary).

That way, we could give priority to getting selection criteria to com.au
fixed, and leave discussion of the different requirements of other 2LDs
until later.  (Hmm, why do I have this strange sense of deva ju? :-)
__________________________________________________________________________
David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  http://www.cyber.com.au/  +61 3 9642-5997
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management