Re: Shared vs. Exclusive

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Hank Nussbacher allegedly said:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > I have noted this in a couple of previous posts, but perhaps I will 
> > mention it again -- it is *not true* that all the mechanisms for 
> > operating shared TLD registries have to be in place before licenses 
> > for shared TLDs can be awarded.  Single licenses for shared TLDs can be 
> > awarded immediately after the details of the licensing agreement are 
> > worked out.  This gives those registries who are granted such a 
> > license a defacto grace period of exclusive use until suitable 
> > protocols can wend their way through the IETF RFC process, but 
> > establishes the TLDs as shared from the very start.
> 
> Would you want to sign in on a shared TLD knowing that the license
> agreement was unknown?  You are basically signing a blank check.
> I know of very few companies willing to enter something like this 
> without knowing ALL the details ahead of time.

The license agreement will be complete and final, something the IAHC
will define.  (The IAHC would have to define a similar document for
any exclusive TLD grants, as well.) The license agreement will include
a clause that says "Licensee agrees to implement a sharing protocol
approved as an RFC by the IETF".  Bear in mind that such an RFC would
require two interoperable implementations.  The license should also,
IMO, include a clause that stupulates that the holder is free to
implement any other sharing arrangement agreed to among all the
licensees for that TLD.

The Licensee would have the option of defining their own sharing 
protocol in an RFC, and, if it was reasonable, it would be accepted. 

> > All I can say, Hank, is that it would not be in their economic 
> > self-interest to destroy the TLD, and the licensing terms should be 
> > thought about very carefully vis a vis fostering mutual economic self 
> > interest for the registries.
> 
> Yes.  If they are logical and sane.  What if you buy into a shared
> TLD and end up with a nightmare on your hands?

What if I buy a car that is a lemon? What if I enter a marriage that
goes sour? What if I buy a stock and it tanks? It would be a pain. 
OTOH, if the sharing protocol(s) is(are) well designed and the license
terms define reasonable binding conflict resolution procedures
(perhaps through a committee selected from IETF/ISOC/etc), then it 
would be a reasonable business risk.  People by the thousands enter 
into agreements that could go sour, every day.  It's a business risk.

-- 
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