Re: [net-com] Re: Draft report version 4

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 25 May 2004, at 09:30 [=GMT+0200], Cary Karp wrote:

> Quoting Thomas:
>
> > How would this justify *not* minimizing registry-to-registrar pricing,
> > all other things equal?  How would it justify giving carte blanche to
> > bidders for proposing nebulous "enhancements" that then lead to higher
> > registry-level pricing?
>
> I doubt that the situation will arise where two proposals will turn out to
> be absolutely equivalent save for one single factor. Nor has anything been
> presented that suggests that if it, nonetheless, does come down to a
> single overriding criterion, that this will be pricing.
>
> One of the things that can done to keep the process from getting bogged
> down by nebulous suggestions, is establishing a robust evaluative framework
> that the panel ultimately charged with assessing the proposals may apply to
> best advantage.
>
> Our subcommittee's contribution to the development of that framework
> certainly should list the criteria we feel require consideration. I cannot,
> however, see anything to be gained by our weighting the list. The review
> panel has to be free to ascribe relative merit to individual criteria in
> response to the actual proposals. Our speculative assessment of what those
> proposals are likely to contain may or may not be a useful exercise but I
> suspect that we can spend the remaining moments of our activity toward more
> productive end.

It all boils down to what the GNSO offers as policy. Is that: Go ahead
do your cartel management, or: We have some objectives, and we think
that this one is the most important? People are looking over our
shoulders. I cannot sell to my constituency, that we leave it to some
sort of experts or staff to decide what is most important.

What is wrong with lower prices?