RE: [wg-c] capital idea

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

> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 7:28 PM
>
> At 06:47 PM 8/22/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >NAlso not true. If you will more carefully read my recent messages, I
> >suggest an annual solvency/SLA  review. One that is much
> more palatable,
> >from an investors stand-point, and also more potentially
> stringent than
>
> this means that you both agree that the 'grant' can be taken
> back.

I could look at it as more of a license, in this case. More than that, I
shall not concede at this time. There are issues involving trademark law
that may complicate things ... a bunch.

> To use  the punchline from an old joke, you are just haggling price.

I'm in commerce ... but, of course .... and your point?

Eh, Dave ... aren't you a consultant? In "User Friendly", I think they
call that evolutionary step "Chargus Maximus". That doesn't sound like
you haggle much at all.

> A mandatory re-bid starts from a clean slate every time.  The
> solvency/SLA  review assumes a default "yes" absent serious problems.

Yes it does. That's why it's more palatable. Just like with radio
stations, television stations, PCS licenses, and all the rest of the FCC
world. Otherwise, they'd have no investors either (and no wireless phone
services). If PCS licenses were under mandatory re-bid, like Kent wants
for TLDs, I wouldn't have a working PCS phone now. I guarantee it.

> If one takes the "default yes" approach, it's worth asking
> how changes to  the SLA are made and what the leverage is against the
> registry to agree to  them.

The same leverage that the FCC has to get changes out of their
licensees. It's part of the license compliance requirement. Comply, or
else ... The investors will make sure that the management complies, in
order to not present excessive risk to the investors' $cash$. Money is a
seriously strong motivator here.

However, there is ONE major problem. The ICANN is NOT a USG regulatory
agency and the license does not carry the same force of law. ICANN does
NOT have legal exclusivity. A competing organization, licensing
competing TLDs, can spring up and there would be NOTHING ICANN could do
about it. In order for any of this type of scheme to work, the ICANN
must be re-absorbed as a regulatory body with governmental authority.
Geez, maybe the Heuben's weren't so far off the mark after all?

> Note, for example, how difficult it has been to get
> changes out of
> NSI...

Even *you* can see that the NSI contract is quite different than what we
are discussing here.