Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs

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

> > If you are split, which company is suing CORE, and why?
> I will not comment on ongoing litigation.

AFAIK, IOD hasn't yet split, so the question is moot. In any case,
litigation between IOD & CORE *should* have no bearing on our work here.

> > So, what next #2: IOD the registry should drop all claims to .web and
> > position itself to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. 
> NSI the registry should drop all claims to .com and position itself
> to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available.

They have and they will. Take a look at the agreement. Some time down the
line (something like 6-7 years still to go, though I think there was a
provision that changed the lengths depending on how fast/slow the NSI split
REALLY came into existence -can't be bothered to look at it right now as it
just changes dates-) com/net/org WILL be tendered for a bid. NSI HAS dropped
all claims to ".com" (one of the terms of the settlement). The only reason
that they got such an enormously beneficial length of term to continue
hanging on to ".com" is because the fight to make them let go was going to
be way long and painful. NSI had a great bargaining chip in their hands in
that they had (as so to speak) the internet "by the balls". While I agree
with you 100% that in all *FAIRNESS* NSI should be treated just as everyone
else, they have been very astute and managed to drive a hard bargain based
on their prior situation which was critical to internet infrastructure.
I would consider it their last opportunity to hold the internet up for
ransom.
Any other gTLD added to the root is a NEW situation (whatever anyone may be
doing outside of the legacy roots is a different matter), and therefore the
bargaining chips on the side of people not wanting to give up what doesn't
exist are very limited... In fact, those chips just amount to being able to
block progress towards the situation envisioned for NSI (which NSI managed
to get a bit of wriggle room).

Fairness would say that ".com" should have already been tendered in an open
way to being run by any registry operator under a set of conditions with no
advantage a priori to NSI (other than already having a well established
know-how -tongue in cheek there-). We *will* have that fairness in a few
years, so in the meanwhile NSI operates under a non-tendered contract which
is a far too long extension of their 5 year contract. As we all know, two
wrongs do NOT make a right, and affirming that reproducing that state of
unfairness all over (ie granting TLDs based on who-knows-what type of merit
as opposed to open tender to run the registry) would make things fair is
patently false.

One highly possible scenario for the lawsuit-inclined, once a few other TLDs
get put into the root on a tendered bid basis, would be for one of the
registry operators (or one of those that didn't manage to secure a bid) to
collectively sue NSI, DoC, NSF and ICANN stating that the current deal is
invalid and that com/net/org should be put up for bids IMMEDIATELY. Maybe it
would be more fruitful to concentrate lawyer expenses in that direction.
Whoever *did* sue in that direction would certainly get a LOT of backing.

Yours, John.