Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

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

Apart from the obvious question of "why grant a cash-cow in the first
place?" (what the hell, why give ".web" to Chris, I want it too if it's up
for grabs, and I don't see the fact that Chris has been crying "gimme" for
much longer any basis to give it to him instead), once you DO give away a
cash cow, try taking it back (for that matter, ever tried to stop your kid
from playing Nintendo after his assigned one hour of play was up... Did he
go nicely?).
Just look at the fuss that NSI made over it. If you read the contracts, it
was more than clear that the term was 5 years and then everything goes back
to NSF. It's taken an extra two years for them to accept that they'll in
fact give it up in 4-8 years!!!
And the contract was clearly spelt out with obligations and termination
date.
In any case, IOD just wants ".web" given to them in an uncompetitive bid.
(And they keep calling it that they want competition).

Yours, John Broomfield.


> Umm, no. Not if he signed a contract that clearly spelled out his obligations and the
> termination date of his license. No basis for a lawsuit.
> 
> By the way, the same argument applies to any second-level domain. SLD registrants get the
> domain for a period of time specified in the contract, and under the terms and conditions
> specified in the contract. It doesn't matter whether the org is profit or non-profit. This
> whole thing is a non-issue.
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > You are confusing theory and practice.  If you revoke Chris Ambler's
> > license to run as a for-profit, he will sue.  It doesn't matter what
> > the merits are, he will fight it tooth and nail.  In fact, he would
> > have a fiduciary obligation to his stockholders to do so, just as
> > NSI has had such an obligation.