RE: [wg-c] capital idea

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

There is a substantial difference between applying a sunk-cost
investment vs. requiring a new investment. In all those out-sourcing
engagements the common thread is that the customer (ie LLNL) isn't the
only possible customer, thereby mitigating the risk. The out-source
vendor has other customers, or potential customers. This is a monopoly
case (ICANN) where there is only one customer and a registry can lose
100% of their investment if they lose the bid.

This is elementary business, why are we arguing this?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 9:57 AM
> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Cc: Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] capital idea
>
>
> At 08:36 AM 8/20/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >None of those contracts require the upfront capital investment that
> >running a registry requires.
>
> Some require considerably more.
>
> An example is the folks who pick up our trash.  Waste
> management contracts
> are typically re-bid.
>
> And however excessive one is with the capital investment for
> a registry, I
> doubt that it will compete with a fleet of garbage trucks and
> the support
> infrastructure needed for a large city.
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1
> 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1
> 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive
<http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
<mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>