Forwarding a message from Michael Malone:
> Losing a DNA is, in my opinion, a non event for the DNS.

I agree. I think trustworthiness and ability to technically implement the
required connections to the AUNIC database and primary nameserver are
more important than the number of people in the organisation or whether
a ping to munnari comes back within some time limit.

Trustworthiness - i.e. the DNA can be relied upon to implement the given
policy fairly and accurately;

Technical ability - i.e. the DNA does not knowingly or otherwise corrupt
the AUNIC or primary nameserver databases.

I'd like to throw into the discussion something Kevin Dinn mentioned in
passing, which is, how many DNAs are likely to exist for com.au ? I
don't recall numbers being discussed at the ADNA meetings which I
attended. Privately I expected "2 or 3". Kevin mentioned 10. Assuming
there's rough consensus on separation of roles, "almost anybody can be a
com.au DNA" and we could end up with hundreds. So how long is a piece of
string then? How do we recognise how many com.au DNAs is "too many"?
I assume that kre will never, ever allow "open slather" on being a
com.au DNA, so now that the criteria are potentially relaxed, the
ongoing challenge is to tighten them to prevent this.

Nick.
-- 
Kralizec / Zeta Microcomputer Software  Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043        http://www.zeta.org.au/