ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[net-com] Re: Draft report version 4

  • To: net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [net-com] Re: Draft report version 4
  • From: Cary Karp <ck@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:30:55 +0200 (CEST)
  • In-reply-to: <20040524230607.GB10849@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>
  • Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>