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

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

> 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.

Erhem... John, I think you have for-profit corporations confused with
humanitarian charities. No way would such a company bid on such a case.
It would mean having to show profits from year-2. My projections don't
show that as a viable expectation. First-year marketing costs would be
in the millions. I don't see break-even until year-3, at the soonest.
This means that I will have less than 18 months before I lose my TLD
business, while I can make a profit. Before I have to turn it over to
someone else, who will make profits from MY investment. Naaahhh .... I
don't think so.


> 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.

Actually, that wasn't what I was proposing either. I have posted a
compromise. Don't make the same logic fallicy that Dave made and
ass-u-me that I am diametrically opposed to the idea, simply because I
argue against some draconian implementation of it.

Unlike some of my opponents, I'm actually pretty flexible. In the
copmmercial sector, one HAS to be, in order to survive.