Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

what appears to be evolving in these  discussions is two distinct schools of
thought

school # 1 = it's mine

school #2 = its ours

let us try to get beyond this mine & ours and let me propose a different
thread here...

for discussion purposes please try to  view a "gtld" as a public trust
vested in an organization or entity for a specific period of time rather
than property owned by anyone . now then you could hypothetically develop
guidelines for administration of that "trust" and placement of this " trust"
in the hands of whomever had the ability to administer that "trust" the most
efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the public.

naturally you could develop methodologies for evaluating the administration
of this trust and  a periodic process could be put  into place to insure
that the "trust" was always placed in the most efficient and effective care
(i.e. periodic review and re-bidding)

in effect... no one individual or entity owns it

the ability to administer a "gtld trust" would be a function of the
efficient use of capital and resources by the successful  management entity
'bidder " . it then becomes a matter of whom or what entity can operate the
most efficiently and cost effectively. if that entity is privately owned  &
for-profit or not-for profit what would it matter in the long run.

we have mutual savings banks, publicly held financial institutions, we have
examples of this
duality in many sectors today.

????

ken stubbs




----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: <dwmaher@ibm.net>; A.M. Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>; Javier SOLA
<javier@aui.es>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?


> I don't read it that way at all. I see it as the NSF saying, "Hey, we
> might want to do this again with someone else, so when you're done,
> as a return for the award, please tell us how it went and make it
> as easy on us as you can for us to do it again."
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> Personal Opinion Only, of course
> This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
> who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dwmaher@ibm.net>
> To: A.M. Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>; Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>;
> <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?
>
>
> At 07:57 AM 8/9/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> >
> > Check out the NIS solicitation.  It was one of several thousand
> > research projects to companies and institutions, and the
> > intellectual property goes to the awardee.  You may not like it,
> > but that's the way it works.
>
>
> If the "intellectual property goes to the awardee", one wonders why the
> Cooperative Agreement includes section 10 (e), which provides:
>    "The Awardee shall submit electronically and in ten hard (10)
> copies a final report to NSF at the conclusion of the
> Cooperative Agreement. The final report shall contain a
> description of all work performed and problems encountered
> (and if requested a copy and documentation of any and all
> software and data generated) in such form and sufficient
> detail as to permit replication of the work by a reasonably
> knowledgeable party or organization."
>         The Cooperative Agreement was clearly intended to cover services
to
> the
> NSF for a definite, and limited, period of time. When the term of the
> Agreement
> ends, as it will, the work done is to be replicated by another party, and
> the
> Awardee, NSI, must enable the other party to take over.
>         The official spokesman for NSI has said that in the worst-case
> scenario...that being that the Commerce Department decides to strip [NSI]
of
> its right to control the registration of domain names, "we'll just take
our
> customers - all 5.2 million of them - and go elsewhere."
>         This cynical threat to destabilize and fracture the Internet puts
in
> perspective the statements of NSI consultants on this subject.
>         David Maher
>
>
>