Re: First come/First served

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Aveek Datta allegedly said:
> 
> Excerpts from newdom: 18-Nov-96 Re: First come/First served by David
> Collier-Brown@Cana 
> >   I don't thinks that FCFS is sufficient, but I do think it is
> > fair when used as a tie-breaker between otrherwise comparable
> > entities.
> 
> I agree completely. However I want a set time period where other
> companies can also apply for the contract (ie for TLDs). I would hope
> for a announcement on the ISOC, IANA, IETF, and other related
> organizations web pages, and probably a press release. Then maybe a 90
> day period for open registrations for all TLDs. If one registry offers
> 'better' services than all others, it gets the contract. Otherwise,
> First Come First Serve to break all ties...
> 
> I will admit I do not know much about contracts and bidding, but it
> seems fair to me that there be an open period where many entities can
> "bid" (ie apply) and then the best is chosen! Of course the people who
> decide what is chosen and the criteria for best have a BIG job ahead of
> them. So then there lies the case for First Come First Serve -- laziness
> and avoidance of the potential lawsuits and other legal hassles. Of
> course that also means a really big mess. It'd be interesting to get a
> bunch of people to "bogusns" out nameservers which use terrorism to get
> a TLD.

You realize, of course, that by making all iTLDs non-exclusive
(shared), the issue of FCFS vs other means of allocation really
becomes moot?  Also, if the license agreements were reasonably 
crafted, legal complications over who owned the right to be a 
registry for a particular domain would be minimized.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E