Re: Oops -- [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:54:59PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> OTOH, the White Paper was skeptical of the view that registry operators 
> should be nonprofit, as in the "public resource" model. 

From the note I sent describing the "public resource" model:

  The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
  cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
                        ****************************************
  for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to 
  ******************
  ICANN.  The registry operator may be removed for cause, and the   
  contract would be rebid on a periodic basis.

In other words, it is not the case that the public resource model
requires a non-profit(*) registry operator.  It calls for a
non-profit *registry*.  This is a very important distinction -- the
company that does the janitorial work at the Red Cross building is a
for-profit company performing services under contract for a
non-profit charity. 

That's a hypothetical case -- I don't really know who does janitorial
work for the Red Cross. :-)

I do know, however, that Emergent, the company that built the CORE
registry system, and who operated the prototype CORE registry for a
time, is a for-profit company, and it operated the CORE registry
under contract to CORE.  However, the CORE registry is a non-profit.

It is indeed *highly* desirable to have competition between registry
operators.  That is completely compatible with non-profit registries.

================================================================

(*)I use the term "non-profit" fairly freely above -- I'm sure there 
are all kinds of legal subtleties.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain