Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 5:45:13 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:

> 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.

You know, you have a real point here.

As a matter of fact, lets carry it to its logical conclusion.
Automobiles are a mainstay of our societies.  Rather than let the
automobile manufacturers maintain their ability to be the builder and
sales outlet for a particular design they developed and invested in,
they will only get that right for xx years, after which continued
manufacture and sale will be rebid to the lowest bidder.

Come on, surely you see how ridiculous this is.

This issue is a total non-starter.

If the registry is meeting their contractual obligations, then there
is no reason to mandate a change/rebid.  ONLY if they fall out of
their obligations should this severe and extreme action be taken.

I'll even go so far as to say that during the initial years, we make
the contacts subject to periodic review and renegotiation to cover the
concerns of those who have said that we can't foresee all the issues
that may arise.  I think the initially approved registry operators
would even agree with this provision without argument.


> 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

Certianly you can.  If they do not meet their contractual obligations,
you can and most certainly will take it back and rebid it.

You address the concerns you have with these registries by coming up
with reasonable contractual obligations that they MUST meet to
continue operating the registry.

Once again I ask you for specifics as to why this approach will not
work, and what the problems are with it.

You have yet to address this question, and I would really like to see
it addressed, as an approach along these lines is more likely to
achieve a compromise consensus of the workgroup, by being able to
address the concerns of the wide variety of interests in the group
with contractual obligations that satisfy their concerns.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org