RE: [wg-c] capital idea

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

> Behalf Of Dave Crocker, Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 10:00 PM
>
> At 09:34 PM 8/22/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > > 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
>
> A registry's relationship with end-users (registrants) is
> quite different
> from the relationship a radio or tv  station has with their
> audience.  Audiences can change channels and or bring
> pressure through
> advertisers.  A registry locks in its end-users.
>
> Hence the systemic leverage is quite different.

... and the relevance of this point? Renaming is simply a matter of
changing the DNS master file and some parameter changes on the servers.
Most workstations are using DHCP, or some other form of dynamic IP
allocation, anyway. Further, many companies are using NAT and internal
domains (ie sfusweb.com) for their intranets. Only the external
interface is using the DNS names and static IP allocations. I would
wager that, when meaningful TLD registry competition arrives, this will
be more common-place. IOW, the lock-in argument is yet another
red-herring.

> > > 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.
>
> Really?  How?

Have you read the co-op agreement? Does it sound anything like what
we're talking about here? ...really!