At 12:27 4/08/97 +0000, Kevin Dinn wrote:
>
>OK - I don't recollect David's suggestion but I am happy to declare that
>what we are working on here to be the "Selection criteria for new DNA and
>2LDs for commercial domains".

I support this; and this is in line with ADNA's current policy position on
its priorities.

>I would also suggest that we can now progress on the basis that *all* such
>new DNAs will deal with *all* the initial ADNA 2LDs be they existing or new
>as they (the domains) will all be commercially based.
>
>Any objections?
 
I tend to disagree. This seems to be more a technology-driven solution than
one looking at market-driven requirements.
For example, there would be a good case for the Australian Industrial
Policy Office (AIPO)- or a subcontracted entity acting on their behalf - to
be the DNA for a new tm.au 2LD, as they obviously have the greatest
expertise to check their own databases to check if a candidate name already
has some status in the Australian trademark registration process. But I
suspect that the AIPO would not be interested in any wider DNA
responsibilities. 
One can postulate other specialist, valuable 2LDs suitable for specialised
DNAs.
And why should a 'generalist DNA' need to cover all the specialised 2LDs?

Regards
PG