At 22:06 29/07/97 +1000, Andrew Donald wrote:
>An Australian TLD is not equal to a global TLD.  Obviously, from a
>competitive perspective, it is in Melbourne IT's interest to set the
>barriers to entry as high as possible.  The IAHC/CORE criteria are
>obviously not a done deal yet and may well be modified as the current
>chaotic state of affairs at a global level is resolved.  I suggest we leave
>the requirements as set out by Kevin Dinn below.  Minimum bureaucracy and
>maximum competition get my vote. 
>

Two points:
(1) The minimum requirements of a commercial DNA, in terms of providing
help-desk support, processing of payments and accounting, registration
itself and dealing with regulatory/legal issues, require a minimum staffing
resource (well above one full-time staff member) that is virtually
traffic-independent.  It is quite reasonable of ADNA to demand that
applicant DNAs should demonstrate the financial capability to resource
these essential functions.
The Internet industry is already in some disrepute with the general
business community for poor performance by many under-capitalised ISPs, and
it will get into further disrepute if the DNS also delivers poor
performance through being under-resourced.
 
(2) My impression is that the IAHC/CORE criteria are now stable - perhaps
Geoff Huston could comment on tnis. The IAHC/CORE financial criterion of
demonstrating that you can draw upon the equivalent of A$400K credit is not
an excessive barrier to entry for any serious business embarking upon a
commercial DNA role. I see no reason why Australian standards should be set
any weaker than the gTLD standards on this point. 

Regards
PG