Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

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

in response...
two items would be of concern to me here
1. evolution of technology could obsolete any "standards" in place when the
original management contract was in place and methodology for re-evalution
would need to contemplate this possibility
2. given the abuses of FCC licensing  of TV stations and the respective
"license renewal process" therein, ... i certainly would not like to see a
comparable model with respect to the  "failure to live up to contractual
committments".

future efficiencies in technology need to be passed thru to the users of
this service and not captured as "unearned benefits" by the administrators




ken

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?


> > 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)
>
> Taking your point for sake of argument (since I don't believe it's a
> public trust in the first place), I have no objection to your proposal,
> above, as long as you change "periodic review and re-bidding" to
> "periodic review and re-bidding in the case where such review shows
> that the operator has failed to live up to its contractual agreements."
>
> Now create a contract that spells out exactly what criteria are
> viewed as running the TLD "well" and you're done.
>
> Christopher
>
>