Re: [nc-org] Dot org report

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Elisabeth:
I think you mistake the point I am making.
I am not saying that implementation details
are unimportant. I am simply saying that 
we are not at the point in the process where
we specify implementation details. 

Implementation details will enter the process
in two distinct steps:

1) Drawing up a RFP asking for specific bids;
2) When possible providers submit bids
corresponding to the RFP.

MOST of the implementation details will
come when people submit bids. At that 
point, we can see whether they have
proposed actions that are specific and
detailed enough. Until that time, it 
is both pointless and undesirable for 
us to tell them what the implementation
details should be. The whole point of asking
for bids is that other parties can come up 
with their own ideas about the details,
and we can select the best one.

>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 11/08/01 04:24PM >>>


I respectifully disagree with you.
Thomas Roessler's comments are well to the point,
and should be considered. Indeed it IS a policy
matter.

As I already pointed out (sorry folks to repeat)
taking over the dot org is a costly and complex
work. The dot org is 17 millions dollars US per annum today
on Registry level, it asks for a well organized company,
and setting up a such one will absorb more than 5 million
dollars US from VeriSign.
It is a policy and responsibility matter to enter 
into implementation details, unless you plan to have 
VeriSign running it forever.

Elisabeth

> 
> In preparing revisions in the org report, I 
> have considered some of Thomas Roessler's 
> comments. His comments are on the whole 
> excellent and well taken, but I think he 
> misunderstands the function
> of the DNSO policy-making process. 
> 
> In effect, Roessler is asking us to write a detailed
> Request for Proposals (RFP), which asks for such things
> as a detailed business plan, the contractual and
> legal capabilities of the sponsoring organization
> to enforce an outsourcing contract, etc.
> 
> I don't think that is our function at this stage. 
> That is the next step in the process:
> we hand a general policy to ICANN, and they
> write the RFP that implements it. So I will
> not be proposing any modifications to the
> report that respond to these concerns.
> 
> Finally, Roessler makes a comment about
> the $1000 application fee limit which misses
> the point. Of course, any serious organization
> could afford to put up more than $1000.
> But what reason is there to require it? 
> As Roessler himself points out, the real 
> costs here are in developing a proposal and
> in rounding up political, legal and financial
> support. Those costs will run in the tens of
> thousands of dollars. There is no legitimate 
> reason to pile additional costs on to the 
> process. The need for doing so is further
> obviated by the $5 million that Verisign is
> providing for the transitional process. 
> $1000 is enough to prevent any
> non-serious applicants. But unreasonably
> high upfront costs may scare away 
> legitimate applicants.
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> 
>