Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 11:34:16 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:


>> > 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.

> Companies are in general very clever, more so when they're trying to
> increase their profits. A company can stay within contractual obligations,
> or just outside them and argue ad-infinitum that they are well within both
> the letter and the spirit.
> Also, within the wonderful world of internet, changes happen rather fast,
> and things that come into existance won't necessarily have been thought of
> in the contract.

And so in the initial stage you build into the contract a
renegotiation term or other means of covering issues that may not be
foreseen.

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

> Of course, with the "make strict contracts" you seem to think that
> everything is solved. You are basically saying "forecast the unforseeable".

No, you can include language that permits the contracts to be
renegotiated.  What we need to discuss is the terms that will cover
this renegotiation.  Any ideas you would like to toss out for us?

>> There is no reason to re-bid the registry.

> The reason is very simple, it's not to allow a registry operator to become
> entrenched, as NSI is.

NSI is in this position because it is in a monopoly position with
regard to gTLDs.  We can make sure that will never happen again by
adopting an open model that permits new gTLDs to be added with minimum
difficulty and with only the requirements technically required to
ensure stable operations.

>> 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.

> On this point I agree with you totally. If we're defining the rules of a
> whole new ball game, then everyone should be playing on the same field. I
> certainly hope that NSI does *not* get an automatic extension to 2004. I
> would not mind at all if they won an open and neutral bid that said "5 years
> to run the registry, divesting registrar from registry and making them
> separate entities, and then an automatic rebid".

> I suspect that most of the arguments that we are having about what company
> can run a registry and in what way will depend heavily on what gets decided
> for NSI.

Good point.

I for one would like to think we are finally getting somewhere.

--
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