[wg-c] Recap from past threads...

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

I thought that we had already hashed through a lot of these points a few
weeks back...(and I'm just as guilty of rehash as the next)

To recap past threads ("Eureka?" "Public resources - Reply")

- reclamation and retender is in the best interests of sld holders if the
registry is not performing up to the specification of a contract between
the registry and ICANN.

- TLDs can be held as IP until such time that the contract between the
registry is pulled by ICANN for non-performance or insolvency.

- the contract between the registry and ICANN must be strongly worded and
extremely concise so as to eliminate all possible confusion as to
intepretation and rights of either party.

- that the number of TLDs a registry can operate must, at least at first,
be limited in number but not so limited as to disallow the incumbent NSI's
participation in the process.


I think that this is where Roeland, Chris, William and I got to before the
straw vote...

Thoughts?

-RWR
-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
To: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>
Cc: Cade Marilyn S - LGA <mcade@att.com>; bill@mail.nic.nu
<bill@mail.nic.nu>; wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Date: Sunday, August 22, 1999 9:13 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?


>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
>