Re: [wg-c] Re-bidding

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> The arguments for automatic re-bidding of registries are actually very
> interesting.
> 
> If they're true, I think we should also have automatic re-bidding of
> ccTLD registries, too.

Sure, why not... I agree with you on that (no sarcasm). Note that I do
believe strongly that a ccTLD registry should be within the laws of the
country that governs that area, and at the same time have wide acceptance
from the parties it is working for : the registrars, and (a bit more down
the line) the registrants.
If it is large enough to warrant the hassle, why not have it rebid. Who
should be the responsible party ("owner"?) for the ccTLD? Probably some sort
of non-profit equivalent to ICANN, but at a national level. Best example
around is nominet. You have a widely accepted non-profit at the top. They
actually run the registry in house (I believe), but they could very well
outsource it, should there be any company around willing to do it at the
same efficiency price. I'm not sure that any entity has come forward to
offer to do so, but why not?
As far as FORCING a particular country to take this type of model.... ah,
there I draw a line. I don't think that any of us should be mixing with the
politics of areas which are NOT our own country. The internet community of
each country should solve its own problems in that respect.

> Also, the RIRs should be re-bid - they've in even MORE of a
> monopoly abuse position!

Same as above, why not? Personally I can't see companies lining up to run
the bunch of computers on which the RIPE database works, but that could be
separated into a different operation. In the particular case of RIPE (AIS is
a member, so I know what I'm talking about), as the equivalent of a
registrar of IP addresses (you could call RIPE the registry), I'm happy with
the service that I'm getting. Also, the way that RIPE was formed was
actually a bottom up operation, ISPs getting together with a need for a
registry, and setting up RIPE (initially funded by some of those ISPs, until
a business plan was found to make it autonomous as the cost-recovery operation
that it is today). If you come along with a bunch of registrars that form a
bottom up corporation to run a registry for them with which they all agree
and then plonk a TLD in there to be run, that sounds fine to me... (hey!,
sounds just like CORE! :-) )

> While we're at it, I think DUNS should be re-bid every now and
> again. Imagine the chaos if they were to start charging exorbitant
> rates!

People would stop using D&B probably? I've never up to now needed it. It's a
typically US centric thing (I need it now because verisign demands either
that or certified translations into English of the articles of association
of my company, but if D&B suddenly hiked the price, I don't think it would
be a popular option as verification with Verisign. I'd just get my papers
translated.).
It's their directory service in any case... It's a "D&B" number, not
something else... not a ".com" domain (subtle difference in that D&B is
easily recognizable as a trademark, whereas the jury seems to be out of
whether .com belongs to NSI).

> We'd also better re-bid the NYSE - same argument.

Lost me on that one.

> Can we move on to something real now?

Yeah, like IOD saying "gimme ".web" or I'll sqweam".

Yours, John Broomfield.