Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> I think all of this is speculation at this time. Once agreed upon procedures
> are in place to create a new gTLD(s), and there is public announcements of
> new gTLDS, media feeding frenzy will help to create user awareness of the
> new gTLD.  none of that has happened to date. Once it does, marketing won't
> be the biggest problem, I agree. 
> 
> But what's the point of this particular argument? I'm lost somewhere trying
> to understand a set of comments from non-marketing experts about what will
> be needed to market a new product... interesting to speculate.  Probably
> not our biggest challenge before us at this time. 
> 
> Marilyn

The point of this particular argument is an attempt (very long shot anyway)
to somehow prove that regular re-bidding of registry operators for any given
TLD is a terrible idea.

The argument goes like this:
You have to invest millions to market "your" (horrible word there, watch
out) gTLD. You have to invest millions in equipment and staff to get it up
and running (apparently from day one, with no return guarantee, instead of
-as with NSI- building up as you need to deliver heavier services). So,
given all that, no company in the world in its right senses would EVER bid
on a tender that demands a re-bid 5 years later, despite the obvious
benefits that this would give the rest of the community.

Actually, I'm willing to go along with this argument, and there's an easy
way to test it. Tender the running of a gTLD with a limited (1-5 years? 3
maybe?) term. As Roeland is probably correct, there won't be ANY takers at
any price, which will just prove his point. After that, the tender just gets
modified for an ad-infinitum period as he proposes.
He probably won't accept this because he'll come up with some other argument
instead... How about if the FIRST gTLD is tendered in this way? If that one
gets takers, then it's proven that it is a viable proposition, isn't it?
Seeing that there are only disadvantages to the general public (and only
advantages to the particular company granted the un-limited time for the
gTLD) to give out gTLDs forever, if it is proven that re-bid has takers, I'd
say go for it...

The problem with doing it the other way around, is that once you give it out
forever, you can't take it back, can you? Seeing that forever is quite a
long time, then it won't matter to test and see if anyone wants to do it on
a limited basis? (Actually helps all you guys who WOULDN'T take it on a
limited basis, because, as you say, it does all the build up for you, and
you can later come and scavenge).

Yours, John Broomfield.