Re. the rebid issue and expert advice, here it is...

--- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] comments on expert advice
> To: PDPfeb06 <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> All,
> 
> here are further inputs re the questions about which we might seek
> expert advice; I roughly mentioned some of them during our meeting
> in
> Marrakesh. (Unfortunately, I threw away the hard copy of the report
> I
> annotated at that time and have to do this all over again.)
> 
> ToR-1: Registry Agreement Renewal
> 
> Exploring the range of the various renewal standards possible in
> comparable or related industries: What are the existing standards,
> the (best) practices? BC's statement points out the relevance of
> having "different renewal qualifications for sponsored TLDs" and
> more
> generally, based on the differences in characteristics of the
> registries. We may be able (or may need expert advice) to clarify,
> beyond the labels used by ICANN to name the different types of
> registries, how truly different registries do we have in terms of
> different business models, economics and policy.
> 
> Presumptive renewal: Is it possible to reconciliate this option
> with
> the objective of continuously ensuring that registries will do
> their
> best to provide the best service at the best price possible for the
> end user? Are there any instruments and practices to achieve this?
> 
> No presumptive renewal: It would be good to clearly document the
> case
> of .net rebid mentioned by BC with regard to this issue. Are there
> practices and procedures that are, or can be, generalizable and
> institutionalized to ensure the rebid process provide the
> opportunity
> to improve the registry services without necessarily taking from
> them
> the agreement (unless there are crime, breach of contract, repeated
> failure, etc.)? What are the shortcomings of that type of rebid
> (any
> secondary effects?), do the advantages outweigh those? How credible
> such process will be if it becomes a common practice in the
> ICANN/registry industry?
> 
> BC, p.20: "renewal in these [other] industries arises because the
> involve capital-intensive investments in very long-life assets and
> often include high licensing or authorization fees [...], which is
> not the case with gTLD registries."
> We may need expert material (or advice) of comparative study of the
> TLD industry with other ICT industries: - structure of the
> industry;
> - level of investment; - cost-benefit analysis including analysis
> of
> return on investment, etc.
> 
> ***
> I thought I would be able to carry on with the ToR-3 (Price
> controls), but I unfortunately have to stop here for now.
>  
> Liz, thank you for the overview on the expert materials; I wish I
> had
> the time to go into detail at least of the Singapore procedures
> that
> look very rich. Also my apologies if we haven't been able to follow
> up on every single point that we discussed inside and outside the
> TF
> meeting in Marrakesh (Milton hasn't been much available since, both
> because he first was too busy and then, and still, on vacation).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
> --- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think the dialogue with the experts should be directly on
> > the
> > TORs, or on each TOR. We do need subquestions - more specific
> > questions under the relevant TOR we think we need that
> consultation
> > on. I might post later on one or two of those possible
> > sub-questions.
> > 
> > Mawaki
> > 
> 
>