[ncdnhc-discuss] One suggestion for .ORG TF participant!

[James Love]

Look Dave,   I have made it clear that I have no problem with ICANN doing
due diligence on the operator for .org, or for that matter, even picking the
qualified operator after a competitive bid.      My point is that a two
stage process would work better, if ICANN actually followed its own bylaws
and followed the DNSO NC report on .org.  Seems like a bad idea to me to
charge the non-profits $35k just to bid, and then complain when they show up
funded by operators, encumbered by lousy contracts with the operators.   But
if ICANN wants to saddle .org registrants with an inefficient and costly way
of picking the .org operator, I'm sure they can dream up a good
justification for doing so.  And you or others can fail to find any way to
make the NC recommendation work efficiently, and then bitch and moan.  But
who is kidding who?  Problems can be fixed if people want to fix them.
Whatever legitimate concerns the NC and the ICANN staff have can *both* be
reconciled, if either party wanted to do so.

Jamie



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <adcom02 at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] One suggestion for .ORG TF participant!


> At 10:30 PM 4/25/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >     Dave, you act is if this if there are not a lot of firms that can do
> >this.
>
> There aren't.
>
> More importantly, there ARE a lot of firms that can NOT do this.
>
>
> >In fact, lots of firms operator big TLDs already, if you include the
> >ccTLDS.
>
> Most ccTLD operations are a fraction of the size that we are talking
> about.  Running a large scale operation is different from running a
> small-scale operation.
>
>
> >       Well, actually in the second stage, the "choice" could be the Non-
> >Profit, subject to approval by ICANN's due diligence, or the other way
> >around -- ICANN could pick the operator, subject to approval by the non-
> >profit.
>
> Or the NCDNHC could pick it.  Or you could pick it.  Or we could run a
> random lotterly.
>
> The issue, James, is not that one can invent a scenario, it is that the
> scenario needs to be practical.
>
> By making the registry operator choice come after selection of the
registry
> you effectively eliminate negotiation power over that choice.  The
leverage
> over the registry administrator is vastly reduced.
>
> You are making a point of ignoring this very real and very much
> demonstrated concern.
>
> Rather than enjoying the invention of hypothetical scenarios, please
attend
> to the practical aspects of making the scenarios successful.
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>