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 > > > >