Re: [wg-c] registry contracts

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

More productive contribution, eh Eric?



On 17-Nov-99 Eric Brunner wrote:
> 
> Caroline,
> 
> Correcting an Error (mine): Turning the lights out.
>  
> Previously I contrasted the title vs no-title interest to registry data
> (the "private data" vs "public trust" question) and wrote that having a 
> title interest to data protected operators-in-place at delegation
> renewal
> events, by raising the cost of their displacement to competitors. 
>  
> By way of background, I couldn't understand the rhetoric that some, who
> would all subsequently be co-signers of the B, or author the G papers,
> employed in their struggle over the basic title to registry data issue.
> I wondered why these guys were opposed to the registry data being public
> trust -- "burn before ceeding" being about average for the subject.
>  
> Thinking about the rebid issue made the penny drop. If the known wanabee
> for-profit registrars of WG-C owned the data transferred to them, then
> at cash-out (non-renewal) they'd be better off if a) they held title,
> and b) they could obtain value for the title transfer. A poision pill
> defense against being out-bid.
> 
> I've found an error in my reasoning. It isn't necessary for the new
> operator of the registry associated with a gTLD to "buy" the data or the
> good will of the former operator, or to take possession (continue the
> resolution of) registrant names while not obtaining title. Why bother?
> 
> If the outgoing operator (A) is less than commercially gracious, then
> incomming operator (B) can mark all of the encumberment-claimed data
> as invalid and leave operator A to settle with its customers. 
> 
> Turning the lights out and letting outgoing hardball registry operators,
> their registrars and registrants freeze in the dark has a one-time cost,
> and if "lock-in" isn't fictive, the registrars (if any) and registrants
> will be more than happy to re-register, creating new data without the
> claimed encumberment by outgoing operator (A).
> 
> The net of this is after a few summary executions, registrants will
> either avoid title-claiming rebid-vulnerable operators, or everyone
> will get used to registry-global renewals, and title will have less of
> an effect to delay consolidation than I'd previously forcast.
>  
> Of course, everyones' milage varries and I don't expect to change the
> minds of anyone. After all, what's in a name anyways?
> 
> Cheers
> Eric 
> 
>         In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
>         but in practice there is.
> 
> (signature credit Patrik Faltstrom)

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934