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

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> 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?

Once again, who says forever?

Would you want to remove a registry that's doing a good job and
meeting its contractual obligations? I wouldn't. Would you want to
remove a registry that was doing a terrible job? Sure, so would I.

So you make strict contractual requirements and levels of service,
and if a registry fails them, they're history.

There is no reason to re-bid the registry.

Regardless, the point still stands: unless NSI's .com is rebid,
you cannot force new ones to be rebid. If NSI gets an extension
to 2004, as is highly likely, then I'll agree to a global rebid in
2004. That's approximately a 4-year cycle. But you simply
cannot impose anything upon a new registry that isn't also
imposed upon the existing registry.

I won't even bother to bring up country-code registries, as
some will then argue that it's different. I don't personally think
so, but I'll let the point go.

Christopher